[3.5] Theoretical: 5/10 Casting PrCs

[Thurbane]

So, hypothetical question: assume all 10 level casting progression PrCs were 5/10 (first increase at level 2, then each even level). No more 10/10, 9/10, etc.

For the sake of convenience, assume single progression PrCs only for this discussion, no theurge PrCs.

Which PrCs would still be worthwhile, mechanically?

And which, if any, would be worth taking for the full 10 levels?

Just idle curiosity.

Cheers - T

[GrayDeath]

Well, for one, all the Initiating, Psionic, Invoking and "simply gets stuff" Prestige Classes, as they are unaffected?


Jokes aside, and assuming you mean for Casting Characters, all that offer a really hard to come by advantage within Level 1 and 2.

No other Casting PRC`s would be taken, unless what they offer is also MASSIVELY boosted (and for msot "good OP Plans" not even then^^).

[NigelWalmsley]

If casting PrCs are Mindbender 5/10, casters will take one level of every single one they can qualify for. If they are Acolyte of the Skin 5/10, they will be ignored unless they offer class features that are absurdly good. Like, Metamagic Effect, Supernatural Spell, or Shadow Illusion good, and at 2nd level. This is, of course, assuming that players are making decisions primarily motivated by power level concerns. Some people will take Green Star Adept now because they think it's cool, but that's all but certainly the wrong decision.

The more interesting question, I think, is what happens if you go the other way, making all partial casting PrCs full casting.

[sreservoir]

A few deeply broken effects can still be worth a 2/4-level dip. 4 levels in Dweomerkeeper picks up 1/day Supernatural Spell; 2 levels in Incantatrix picks up Cooperative Metamagic, 4 also nabs Metamagic Effect and a bonus feat, which can plausibly be worth gimping your own casting for if you have full-casting friends; 2 levels of Tainted Scholar does suffer from losing a spellcaster level but still keeps the important part of its mechanics (though you'll probably have to take Clarity of True Madness and keep a reroll or two available to keep yourself from losing more caster levels).

Also, druids are still druids.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You might get some 1-level dips, like with thrallherd and mindbender, but it takes a LOT to be worth more than a couple of lost CLs. Unless they're super good at what the PrC is supposed to focus on, and that one thing is very powerful AND versatile (like swiftblade, on all counts), don't expect anyone to ever take more than a couple of levels in any casting PrC.

Unless gestalting, of course, so they can alternate levels in a casting class to make up for the extreme deficiency.

[One Step Two]

Off the top, I actually really enjoy this idea, as if you go Wizard/PrC 10, you're still coming away with access to 8th level spells at 20 which isn't terrible in the grand scheme of things. It would discourage multiple PrC hopping, and encourage casters to form a stronger niche. As other have pointed out, that doesn't make it eminently desirable vs straight Wizard 20. Because while 20th level makes it seem comparable (8th level spells vs 9th level spells) you are slowing your spell progression to half over 10 levels.

The two PrC's that pop into mind as worthwhile would be Incantatrix and maybe Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. In the case of the Incatatrix, it is powerful not just because of it's spells, but because of how it can interact with spells, and IotSV would be 3/7 casting progression (less spells levels lost overall), but it's defensive powers are no joke.

[Tytalus]

Planar Shepherd.

[Thurbane]

If casting PrCs are Mindbender 5/10, casters will take one level of every single one they can qualify for.

No, that's why I said first increase at level 2, then each even level.

[NigelWalmsley]

Off the top, I actually really enjoy this idea, as if you go Wizard/PrC 10, you're still coming away with access to 8th level spells at 20 which isn't terrible in the grand scheme of things.

Who cares? That's 20th level. The Truenamer gets Gate at will at 20th level, and it is still universally understood to be a garbage fire of a class (on account of it's a garbage fire of a class). What you do at 20th level doesn't matter, because people don't play at 20th level.

What matters is that at 13th level, instead of getting 7th level spells, that character gets 5th level spells. You know who else gets 5th level spells at that point? Your cohort's cohort. Half-progression PrCs may produce characters that do interesting things at the end of some 20-level build or other, but in practice they are woefully inadequate at the levels at which people actually play.

Just let people play full casting PrCs and accept that the Fighters and Monks will need absurd buffs that are slightly larger than the absurd buffs they already need to be worth playing in a game where "Wizard" is a thing you are allowed to write on your character sheet.

[remetagross]

As far as psionic classes go, I think that Thrallherd remains powerful, since it still offers you the Leadership feat with the added bonus that the cohort's maximum level is "character level -1" instead of "character level -2" as is the case for Leadership. In essence, if you go Psion/Thrallherd, just pick a straight Psion as your psionic cohort, and you've basically just lost 1 manifester level.

[ben-zayb]

Does this include psionics? If so, Ardents will keep full 10 levels manifester-progressing PrCs to be viable, though the new crop of nerfed PrCs will have to be reevaluated and compared to those that were already 5/10 manifesting to begin with. For example, the benefits of Psion Uncarnate, Cognition Thief, Flayerspawn Psychic, or Metamind would now look more appealing depending on specific Ardent builds than a 5/10 Anarchic Initiate or even Slayer.

[One Step Two]

Who cares? That's 20th level. The Truenamer gets Gate at will at 20th level, and it is still universally understood to be a garbage fire of a class (on account of it's a garbage fire of a class). What you do at 20th level doesn't matter, because people don't play at 20th level.

What matters is that at 13th level, instead of getting 7th level spells, that character gets 5th level spells. You know who else gets 5th level spells at that point? Your cohort's cohort. Half-progression PrCs may produce characters that do interesting things at the end of some 20-level build or other, but in practice they are woefully inadequate at the levels at which people actually play.

Just let people play full casting PrCs and accept that the Fighters and Monks will need absurd buffs that are slightly larger than the absurd buffs they already need to be worth playing in a game where "Wizard" is a thing you are allowed to write on your character sheet.

... Did you miss the part of my post where I literally added


As other have pointed out, that doesn't make it eminently desirable vs straight Wizard 20. Because while 20th level makes it seem comparable (8th level spells vs 9th level spells) you are slowing your spell progression to half over 10 levels.

It was the third sentence I used in my post. I'm not in any way discouraging full-casters, but I do believe that there should be a trade off for power when entering a Prestige class, because as they are they are no-brainer, must take, trades in most scenarios. I had considered adding additional ideas of how you could further encourage the Niche/Schtick of casters (such as making a class like malconvoker 5/10 for all other spells that aren't summoning, vs full progression and CL for their core theme of being a summoner), but that was outside of what the OP was asking.

I don't know where you came to the conclusion that I want to nerf casters to the Abyss and back, I was just saying I enjoyed the idea of creating a stronger theme behind a caster choosing the take a PrC to specialize in a given role.

[NigelWalmsley]

... Did you miss the part of my post where I literally added

If you think you hedged your point into irrelevance, why did you make it at all?


I was just saying I enjoyed the idea of creating a stronger theme behind a caster choosing the take a PrC to specialize in a given role.

That's exactly what PrCs do. A Shadowcraft Mage has a strong theme of "doing shadow magic". He has that theme because he has a bunch of abilities that make him better at doing shadow magic. It's true the class makes you better than a strock Sorcerer, but that's not inherently a bad thing. The Sorcerer has no class features. The game should be encouraging him to branch out into a PrC that defines his character as a "shadow mage" or a "fire mage" or a "dragon mage" or whatever, not demanding that each of those things be a difficult trade-off with the default strategy of "mage who takes the best spells at each level". The game is more interesting when people have themes, and demanding that people lose power for theme makes them less likely to make interesting characters, not more.

[rel]

incantatrix 4 for metamagic effect is worth if the effect is persist

mage of the arcane order at 2 or 4 for spellpool is a maybe depending on party comp

dweomerkeeper 4 probably isn't unless the game is at lvl 19 or above in which case unlimited wish works is worth the hit

initiate of the sevenfold veil 4 is a maybe depending on how aggressively NPC's target pointy hats

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Spell sovereign would be pretty good, if optimized. A changeling wizard with the morphic familiar ACF could use the PrC to get any and all spells up to (I believe) 5th level (see: Sanctum Spell), at will, with the only limitation being the number of times they can be cast per diem.

[Anthrowhale]

The circle magic classes (Red Wizard, Halruaan Elder, Hathran) are plausibly worth going to level 6, losing 3 levels of spell advancement. It's a harsh tradeoff, but the ability to use caster level 40 spells is quite potent.

[One Step Two]

If you think you hedged your point into irrelevance, why did you make it at all?

Because it provides scope. While games do not always persist to 20th level, looking from the top downwards can still provide perspective on the relative cap of power presented even with added limitations.


That's exactly what PrCs do. A Shadowcraft Mage has a strong theme of "doing shadow magic". He has that theme because he has a bunch of abilities that make him better at doing shadow magic. It's true the class makes you better than a strock Sorcerer, but that's not inherently a bad thing. The Sorcerer has no class features. The game should be encouraging him to branch out into a PrC that defines his character as a "shadow mage" or a "fire mage" or a "dragon mage" or whatever, not demanding that each of those things be a difficult trade-off with the default strategy of "mage who takes the best spells at each level". The game is more interesting when people have themes, and demanding that people lose power for theme makes them less likely to make interesting characters, not more.

Just to touch on the Shadowcraft Mage, the only major limitation it asks of the player, is that they play a gnome, limiting their choice for Race. The skill requirements are hardly difficult, and the lone Feat requirement is something a dedicated Illusionist would want to take anyway. If a player wanted to make a Human shadow magic specialist, they would forever be behind the Shadowcraft mage because they did not choose a Gnome as their race, and the gnome illusionist loses nothing for taking the PrC at all, they don't even loose efficacy at other spell schools for the Shadowcraft Mage.

I am not disagreeing that players should have a wide pool of choices and still maintain their character power, but to continue to use the example a Shadowcraft mage. The player can enhance their niche, but they are losing nothing for it, to the point where you could have that same character casting nothing but evocation spells and never once cast Illusions, and how would anyone know they were a Shadowcraft Mage? (This is all part of the illusion, people think he's an evoker until he drops a shadow spell on them, super double-bluff spellcasting!)

I honestly don't know how you came to the conclusion I was asking casters to be nerfed. To be clear: I am not.

[NigelWalmsley]

The circle magic classes (Red Wizard, Halruaan Elder, Hathran) are plausibly worth going to level 6, losing 3 levels of spell advancement. It's a harsh tradeoff, but the ability to use caster level 40 spells is quite potent.

But it's not like you can't cheese up your caster level as a straight Wizard. And if you're going to go around doing cheesy stuff, is "my caster level is large but finite" really better than Planar Binding at 11th, Polymorph Any Object at 15th, and Shapechange at 17th? I'm frankly pretty skeptical that there is any cheese that is worth giving up caster levels for, because the cheese you get from just casting spells is bigger than what any PrC actually gives you. You could pursue a career as an Incantatrix and get some persistent buffs. Or you could not lose any casting and have more spell slots to spend on the demon army you get for being a Wizard who can cast 6th level spells.


Just to touch on the Shadowcraft Mage, the only major limitation it asks of the player, is that they play a gnome, limiting their choice for Race.

Not true. It asks that they do not play any of the other caster PrCs available to them. Every level taken in Shadowcraft Mage is a level not taken in Mage of the Arcane Order, Divine Oracle, or or any of the other dozens of casting PrCs you might choose to take. The trouble with this point of view is the notion that the appropriate baseline is "more levels in a base class". But in practice that hasn't been the case since the first PrCs were introduced.

It's true that it would be better if Sorcerer 20 was also a reasonable life choice. But to achieve that, you'd need to give the Sorcerer some class features after 1st level. Except that as it turns out, doing that makes it unnecessary for PrCs to drop your casting, because then there's already a tradeoff.


you could have that same character casting nothing but evocation spells and never once cast Illusions, and how would anyone know they were a Shadowcraft Mage?

At that point, why would you be a Shadowcraft Mage? If you're not going to use your Shadowcraft Mage abilities, any resources you spent to cast them are, by definition, wasted. You might as well have stuck to Sorcerer to get a slightly better familiar.


I honestly don't know how you came to the conclusion I was asking casters to be nerfed. To be clear: I am not.

So you don't think that reduced progression for casting PrCs is a good idea?

[Biggus]

Who cares? That's 20th level
What matters is that at 13th level, instead of getting 7th level spells, that character gets 5th level spells.

How do you work that out? A Wizard gets 6th-level spells at 11th level, and with 10 Wizard levels and 3 half-casting levels you're effectively Wizard 11.

[sreservoir]

Iot7V seems pretty hard to justify at the cost of two spellcaster levels and three feats at any level before 19th either, especially when the normally cost-reducing master specialist entry is pretty much out of the question. A widely-applicable reactive defense doesn't stack up too well against the next level of spells.

[NigelWalmsley]

How do you work that out? A Wizard gets 6th-level spells at 11th level, and with 10 Wizard levels and 3 half-casting levels you're effectively Wizard 11.

I was assuming the plan was to get in ASAP, making you a Wizard 5/PrC 8, who casts as as a 9th level character. You certainly could set things up so that you had taken as few levels of PrC as possible at any given comparison point, but it seems to me doing that supports the notion that half-casting PrCs are something people want to avoid and a poor way of building character identity.


Iot7V seems pretty hard to justify at the cost of two spellcaster levels and three feats at any level before 19th either, especially when the normally cost-reducing master specialist entry is pretty much out of the question. A widely-applicable reactive defense doesn't stack up too well against the next level of spells.

Honestly, everything is hard to justify compared to the next level of spells. Especially because PrCs only kick in when spells start scaling really fast. You might be able to get away with Color Spray and Sleep instead of Web and Glitterdust, but trying to make Dimension Door do the work of Teleport is a lost cause.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Nobody would want to take more than six PrC levels, unless already starting out higher than 20th level.

I'll agree that Incantatrix 4 is still one of the best options available. It's no longer worth taking all ten, but the best ability is gained at the 3rd level.

Arcane Gish builds would die, due to becoming incapable of achieving the +16 BAB and 9th level spells at 20th goal.

[Anthrowhale]

But it's not like you can't cheese up your caster level as a straight Wizard.
There are other approaches to converting spells to effectively SR:No and Save:None, but they have many more constraints, so I expect it would see play.

There are also some nice side benefits. Rashemi spirit magic potentially makes nearly every spell in a huge repertoire available and Adroit Casting is a handy metamagic reducer.

[One Step Two]

At that point, why would you be a Shadowcraft Mage? If you're not going to use your Shadowcraft Mage abilities, any resources you spent to cast them are, by definition, wasted. You might as well have stuck to Sorcerer to get a slightly better familiar.

This. This is pretty much why I found the initial idea of the threat fascinating, it makes the PrC a more meaningful choice. To quote:


It would discourage multiple PrC hopping, and encourage casters to form a stronger niche.

A player would invest more resources to their singular niche, because they are making a willing sacrifice to gain the power of a PrC's unique abilities, as opposed to having lost very little and just gain more power.

To use a tangential example the Shadow Weave Magic feat, it gives you +1 DCs to three different spell schools, and +1 CL to overcome SR when using those schools, at the cost of -1 CL to Two other schools, and any banning your use spells with the Light Descriptor. It gives power, and it trades something off in return, it's interesting, and makes the player build around that feat, it's a choice they made for their character.

This thread as presented an idea thought experiment as to how it impacts the game. My thoughts from my initial post around enjoying this idea is because it presents interesting build challenges, because it makes casters need to decide about if the trade off is enough. You seem to have jumped onto my post as some sort of declaration that all PrC's must lose caster levels, when I was making a statement to the context of the original posts' idea.

[NigelWalmsley]

There are other approaches to converting spells to effectively SR:No and Save:None, but they have many more constraints, so I expect it would see play.

Circle Magic requires you to cart around a bunch of other Circle Magic participants. That's extremely non-trivial. Especially because you delay your access to the best source (Simulacrum).


A player would invest more resources to their singular niche, because they are making a willing sacrifice to gain the power of a PrC's unique abilities, as opposed to having lost very little and just gain more power.

Choosing to take a PrC that boosts a niche instead of a PrC that boosts other things is sacrificing for your niche. An ability that grants you +2 to Illusions has the same relative effect as one that grants you +1 to illusions and -1 to other stuff, except that people empirically take the first ability and do not take the second one. Lots of people play 5th level Shadowcraft Mages. It is a class that successfully encourages players to be illusion specialists. Conversely, almost no one plays 10th level Mindbenders. It is a class that fails at encouraging players to play enchantment specialists. And the very obvious difference between those two classes is that one jacks over your "other stuff" and the other doesn't.


because it makes casters need to decide about if the trade off is enough.

And why is that interesting? What's the benefit of the tradeoff between "get abilities that give your character a defined niche" and "not do that" be anything other than extremely obvious?

People say this all the time when this discussion comes up. But I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for why we'd want it to be a difficult tradeoff from a game design perspective.

[One Step Two]

And why is that interesting? What's the benefit of the tradeoff between "get abilities that give your character a defined niche" and "not do that" be anything other than extremely obvious?

People say this all the time when this discussion comes up. But I have yet to see a satisfying explanation for why we'd want it to be a difficult tradeoff from a game design perspective.

It's interesting to me specifically, because in a world where there is a choice so blindingly obviously better than all the rest, and makes all other choices irrelevant it feels homogeneous and boring.
That's why most of the Build competitions here on the forum have a category of scoring based on originality, because while it's generally held that the T1 classes are some of the best to play for their power, playing them only would make the potential character pool much smaller and less interesting.

This ties into a game design perspective quite well, have you perchance played Doom 2016? I haven't played eternal myself yet, but I loved the balance of the game because the most powerful weapons in the game the BFG and Chainsaw had interesting limitations on them that tied into using the other weapons. You used the chainsaw to one-hit kill many enemies, but if you didn't have enough fuel, you could only use it on smaller enemies. Using the chainsaw meant more ammunition for all your other weapons, creating an interesting gameplay cycle: Use your normal guns to defeat demons until you were running low, one-hit an enemy with the chainsaw to get more ammo, keep fighting demons till you find more fuel, and repeat for your enjoyment. The BFG was a room-cleaner, and saved for nice big iconic moments and to help give the player some breathing space when low on health if need be, or just to feel powerful! If I had a BFG with infinite ammo, it would be fun for a little while, but I would get bored pretty soon after, because then the gameplay loop is broken.

I will expand the idea of a PrC making a player trade raw power for a narrower scope of power is interesting, not just because it provides an interesting build challenge, but that if nothing else, it also for players in a group to find a reason to work together, and makeup their shortcomings.

[sreservoir]

It's interesting to me specifically, because in a world where there is a choice so blindingly obviously better than all the rest, and makes all other choices irrelevant it feels homogeneous and boring.

There isn't, though. You're not normally making a binary choice between SCM and a dead level of your base class; the opportunity cost of taking this level in this PrC is that you're not taking any other class level you're qualified for.

The problem with trading away spells is that 3.5e full casters' spells are so overwhelmingly powerful, and scale so steeply, that any ability that could plausibly be worth delaying access to your next spell level basically has to either function as a force multiplier on your highest-level spell effects, or be deeply broken it its own way. Something like malconvoker or recaster pulls off the former; thrallherd is the latter. Now, it would be fantastic if every PrC hit roughly the malconvoker's balance point. But since they generally don't, there is a blindingly obviously better choice in most situations involving lost spellcaster levels: don't lose the spellcaster level.

"Half-casting", by the way, isn't. Because spells scale so steeply, the impact of a logically constant-factor force multiplier on your highest level of spells (e.g. free extends/empowers) is roughly on par with a constant additive difference in spellcaster levels. This is a pretty fundamental assumption of the system.

Losing a spellcaster level at just the first level of every PrC might make for a more interesting thought experiment.

[Falontani]

A non exhaustive list of prestige classes that are not theurge classes that I would still take at only 1/2 spellcasting:

Abjurant Champion
Insidious Corruptor
Planar Shepherd
Incantitrix (maybe partial)
Unseen Seer (maybe partial)
Ordained Champion (probably partial)
Contemplative (1 or 2)
Dweomerkeeper (probably partial)
Lyric Thaumaturge
Tainted Scholar (I'd take 1 and be super powerful)
Shaper of Form (I like the first like 4 levels on some builds)
Nosomatic Chirugen
Demonbinder
Heir of Syberies
Sovereign Speaker (definitely only partial)
Bone Knight (This one would be weird though..)
Hexer (It is such a pain to enter though!)
Geometer (partial)
Geomancer (partial)
Body Leech
Elocater (partial)
Thrallherd

There are definitely other classes that would tempt me like Shadowcraft Mage, but I can say that the above would still look enticing enough to lose out on higher level spellcasting occasionally. It really depends on the build and what I'm trying to do with it. Sure I could do whatever I am wanting with Shapechange, but Shapechange shouldn't invalidate every other class' existence. Same with Wish and Gate. Getting higher level spells are *nice* but you know what else is nice? At 13th level having 6th level spells and having 4 prestige class levels still.

I do however have one problem with the thought experiment. I think that classes that are focusing on spellcasting should still give a CL every level, even if they delay access to higher levels of magic. I think it should be the case with most prestige classes that have partial casting should increase CL even when they don't increase spell level access.

[One Step Two]

There isn't, though. You're not normally making a binary choice between SCM and a dead level of your base class; the opportunity cost of taking this level in this PrC is that you're not taking any other class level you're qualified for.

My response was specifically NigelWalmsley's asking for justification over making a trade for power being interesting at all. With regards to the SCM, I never claimed it was a binary choice, in a regular game if you were playing a wizard specializing in shadow magic, you don't even have have to pick between SCM, Master Specialist and Shadow adept, you can take all three, and never lose a single spell level, all it takes it the necessary qualifying feats. If I asked the forum to help me build a caster who has a theme around shadows, the SCM will come up almost immediately first before anyone might mention the Shadow Caster, because of that perception of a better choice despite the fact that both follow that niche pretty well.


The problem with trading away spells is that 3.5e full casters' spells are so overwhelmingly powerful, and scale so steeply, that any ability that could plausibly be worth delaying access to your next spell level basically has to either function as a force multiplier on your highest-level spell effects, or be deeply broken it its own way. Something like malconvoker or recaster pulls off the former; thrallherd is the latter. Now, it would be fantastic if every PrC hit roughly the malconvoker's balance point. But since they generally don't, there is a blindingly obviously better choice in most situations involving lost spellcaster levels: don't lose the spellcaster level.

"Half-casting", by the way, isn't. Because spells scale so steeply, the impact of a logically constant-factor force multiplier on your highest level of spells (e.g. free extends/empowers) is roughly on par with a constant additive difference in spellcaster levels. This is a pretty fundamental assumption of the system.

Losing a spellcaster level at just the first level of every PrC might make for a more interesting thought experiment.

That is where I was leading when I took the top-down perspective of a Wizard 20 vs a Wizard 10/PrC10 which ended with 8th level spells, and my initial interest. The trade off is a higher power cap and versatility (9ths) vs the more highly specialized and (hopefully) augmented power 8th level spells that the PrC provides. It would be great to see a PrC provide enough of a laser focus on their themes to make it worth taking, but that isn't the reality. As you pointed out, spells scale way too well, and in almost every choice it's better to have those spells than to get gimmick powers.

And you're right about the final point, perhaps it might be a better question to ask: Which PrC is good enough that it's worth losing the level for, and which PrC could stand to lose one at the start to help balance it a little bit?

[Saintheart]

Ur-Priest at least would still get 5th level spells. As would Divine Crusader. Everyone else would be stuck with level 3s, wouldn't they?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Personally, I'd still take 4 levels of Dread Witch. OTOH, it's already a 4/5 prestige class (and a pretty good one even at that cost), so not necessarily in the spirit of the thread.

I think I've heard it said that Rainbow Servant is still (barely) worth taking if you go by the table instead of the text (making it 6/10), at least for a Warmage. That probably makes it a front-runner in a world where all PrCs are 5/10.

[weckar]

If all choices are suboptimal, it may cause people to choose for flavor more... I am personally a big fan of the geometer, for example.

[Glimbur]

Hot take: make all base classes only 10 levels long. After that, you pick up more flavor/focus/etc with a PrC. You would need some options that you don't deliberately have to build toward, and it changes other things too. But it's an interesting idea. Feels a lot like 4E and its class paths.

On thread topic, I wouldn't support making all PrC's half casting at best. It is a useful toggle to use to (attempt to) balance other abilities, it would require a lot of work to make all PrC's worthwhile at half casting. Seems easier to have the 'how much casting' lever so you can keep more of the original class features.

Putting the two together though... you would fall behind on your higher level spells which would be frustrating. Some monsters kind of assume certain spell levels, either to heal their effects or to effectively engage with them. But if everyone slows down from 11 to 20 with spells gained, and are forced to get something else too... that might be fun for some tables. Lower power than just getting spells 'on schedule' but that might be ok.

[Telonius]

If we're just resetting all casting classes to 5/10, there are a small number of less-than 5/10 casting prestige classes that would actually get an increase in power from this. Master of Masks, a couple of the "Thrall of..." classes from BoVD.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If we're just resetting all casting classes to 5/10, there are a small number of less-than 5/10 casting prestige classes that would actually get an increase in power from this. Master of Masks, a couple of the "Thrall of..." classes from BoVD.I wouldn't mind if arcane archer had 5/10 casting. At least then it would actually gain SOME. Oh, and get rid of that stupid "elf only" prereq. Is it impossible for any race other than elves to be archers? I mean, archery is stupidly feat-intensive, and humans actually gain a bonus feat.

[edit] Oh, and how about PrCs that grant their own casting? Most of them are already pretty low-tier as far as casters go (with some obvious exceptions), so nerfing them seems problematic.

[NigelWalmsley]

It's interesting to me specifically, because in a world where there is a choice so blindingly obviously better than all the rest, and makes all other choices irrelevant it feels homogeneous and boring.

Isn't that exactly the world you're advocating for? Empirically, people do not take half casting PrCs. If half casting PrCs were the only option, you wouldn't see some great flowering of Green Star Adepts and Mindbenders, people would just all play Wizard 20s or Druid 20s or Cleric 20s.


it's generally held that the T1 classes are some of the best to play for their power, playing them only would make the potential character pool much smaller and less interesting.

Sure. Which is why other classes should be better. I would love for Barbarians and Hexblades to be reasonable things for people to be. But you cannot get there by screwing around with PrCs.


I will expand the idea of a PrC making a player trade raw power for a narrower scope of power is interesting, not just because it provides an interesting build challenge, but that if nothing else, it also for players in a group to find a reason to work together, and makeup their shortcomings.

Again, a PrC that gives you +10 to X and a PrC that gives you +5 to X and -5 to not-X have the same effect in this respect. But people take the former and do not take the latter. We have run the experiment you propose, and it does not give the results you want.


There isn't, though. You're not normally making a binary choice between SCM and a dead level of your base class; the opportunity cost of taking this level in this PrC is that you're not taking any other class level you're qualified for.

Yes, exactly.


But since they generally don't, there is a blindingly obviously better choice in most situations involving lost spellcaster levels: don't lose the spellcaster level.

Again, exactly. There is another thing you can do: have PrCs work like the Archmage where you lose spell slots for specific abilities. That's balanced, but it's a huge pain to actually implement. By far the easiest thing to do is just make all PrCs full casting. That does make casters slightly better, but the margin by which it makes them stronger is so much smaller than the degree to which they are already better than non-casters doesn't really effect the rest of the system.


I think I've heard it said that Rainbow Servant is still (barely) worth taking if you go by the table instead of the text (making it 6/10), at least for a Warmage. That probably makes it a front-runner in a world where all PrCs are 5/10.

The Rainbow Servant is weird, because even Text Rainbow Servant is only really worth it if you expect to hit 16th level, and if you do it's mandatory. Levels 1-9 give you a couple of Prestige Domains that are pretty mediocre, while 10 turns you into the most versatile spellcaster in the world. Making it partial casting makes it even worse while you're slogging through the levels where the big payoff is "two kinds of Magic Circle". I am extremely skeptical of the claims that Table Rainbow Servant is even a lateral move (particularly for Beguilers and Dread Necromancers, as they get spells that are actually good).


If all choices are suboptimal, it may cause people to choose for flavor more... I am personally a big fan of the geometer, for example.

All choices aren't suboptimal. Continuing to take base class levels is just as good as it is now, meaning that there's a huge relative swing towards doing that. Now, instead of being punished for flavor if you happen to like a class WotC punched in the junk (like Acolyte of the Skin) but being fine if you happen to like a class they did not (like Master Specialist), you're punched in the junk if you like any flavor at all. I agree that putting all the PrCs on even footing increases the chance people will choose based on flavor, but the way to do that is making them all full casting.

[Doctor Despair]

Ur-Priest at least would still get 5th level spells. As would Divine Crusader. Everyone else would be stuck with level 3s, wouldn't they?

Well, let's see. Spontaneous casters with Versatile Spellcaster would still be able to reach up one level of spell higher, providing they have spells known at that level, such as with the Bloodline series of feats.

Sublime Chord is another advanced progression caster, like Ur Priest, but it STARTS at 4ths and 5ths, so it would 7ths, or technically 8ths with Versatile Spellcaster, with 5/10 progression

I suppose that means you could do something like... Bard 3 with a greater bloodline (max skill = 9), infect yourself with a strain of lycantropy that grants at least 3 hitdie (max skill = 12), take one more level in bard (max skill = 13), then take a level in Sublime Chord and cure the lycantropy. That leaves you as an ECL5 with 5ths (four levels ahead of wizard), and you'd keep roughly in line with a wizard as you progress with a 10-level PrC, getting 6ths at ecl 9 (4/10 prc levels), 7ths at ecl 13 (8/10 prc levels), and then still hitting 9ths at level 18 if we swap back to Sublime Chord levels at the end. Actually, that leaves room for two levels in a PrC, technically, if we wanted to delay our 9ths until level 20, ... How to abuse/break the system isn't really in the topic of the OP though.

[Quertus]

Those that are worth taking 1-2 levels in (like Tainted Sorcerer) would still be worth it. Beholder Mage would be funny. I wouldn't bother with anything else (not that I do anyway - I just write ”Wizard 42” on my sheet, and call it a day).

Honestly, I wasn't expecting people to take such nerfed prestige classes - nobody takes a LA +5 race on a caster, right? Why would they do so now?

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think Spelldancer hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll just leave that as another class still worth taking. But yeah, as abundantly made clear by most everyone else, casting PrCs would mostly die. Especially the "fun and reasonable" classes like Unseen Seer or Church Inquisitor or Paragnostic Apostle.

[rel]

Hot take: make all base classes only 10 levels long.

I like this modification

[Thunder999]

I could see 6 levels of a half casting PrC working, since you still get 9th, but I don't think I could actually play it, because actually playing through the levels where you're behind will not be fun.

[NigelWalmsley]

Hot take: make all base classes only 10 levels long. After that, you pick up more flavor/focus/etc with a PrC. You would need some options that you don't deliberately have to build toward, and it changes other things too. But it's an interesting idea. Feels a lot like 4E and its class paths.

Paragon Paths (and Epic Destinies) was one of the ideas 4e had that was actually really good. It (potentially) completely eliminates the class balance issues that have historically plagued D&D. You no longer have to figure out what the hell a Fighter does when the party is fighting Demon Princes and undead gods (or even "very large dragons"), because anyone playing at that level is a Witch Queen or Thunderlord or Celestial Beacon. 4e, of course, screwed itself over by tying Paragon Paths to base classes and making the Fighter ones things like "Pit Fighter". But in principle the system is a perfect solve for a lot of the problems people have had with the game.


Putting the two together though... you would fall behind on your higher level spells which would be frustrating.

It's actually worse than that, because as far as I can tell PrCs are still supposed to be optional in this setup. So you get two different groups of people, both of whom are frustrated with their characters and resent each other. Some people take a PrC, and lose overall power for specialization and theme. Some people don't take a PrC, and keep their power in exchange for being incredibly generic. The first group resents the second because their characters are more powerful and hog the spotlight. The second group resents the first because their characters are more interesting and fit better with whatever vision it is the players have for them.


But yeah, as abundantly made clear by most everyone else, casting PrCs would mostly die. Especially the "fun and reasonable" classes like Unseen Seer or Church Inquisitor or Paragnostic Apostle.

I could see 6 levels of a half casting PrC working, since you still get 9th, but I don't think I could actually play it, because actually playing through the levels where you're behind will not be fun.

That pretty much sums it up. It makes PrCs miserable to play, and it makes the healthy PrCs that people take now and we are happy about worthless.

[Jervis]

They become like Green Spice Addict and no one uses them for all 10 levels. Seriously there's no situation where those class features are worth taking the casting loss save for situations like PrC paladin where you just want a better paladin.

[Lans]

Eunach Warlock works pretty good with this. The earliest entry is 10th, but I would wait 1 level so you get an empowered 6th level spell at level 12. Your a spell level behind till you catch up at levels 16 and 20, where I think you should be able to get some good use out of a maximized, empowered greater shadow conjurations that you can spam.

[Wildstag]

Which PrCs would still be worthwhile, mechanically?

Arguing the RAW of this question and not the RAI, for the fun of it. You mentioned "no more 9/10th", but would they default to 5/10? In that case, most of these would lose less while gaining the same amount of features. Or would they be reduced to a proportional amount of caster progression (say, 3/10 for Rainbow Servant)? That would make many far worse.

I'd say that a few Cleric PrCs are still good, but I'm honestly just not the biggest fan of their 9th level spells. Since you'd still be able to get your 8th level spells, it'd be good in my book. Classes such as Radiant Servant of Pelor would still be good, but would suffer from the inability to reach Empowered and Maximized Heal, Mass.

Also, I would think this would make the Blighter, and Divine Crusader pretty good, as you could PrC and still get 9th level spells, since those classes have their own unique spell progression. It is weird thinking that the Divine Crusader might actually be a slightly higher priority option, but this is the hypothetical world we live in...

Lastly, Hospitalers (7/10), Rainbow Servant (6/10), Sacred Fist (8/10), and Seekers of the Misty Isle (technically/maybe 8/10) would be on par with the rest of the casting PrCs, and thus would probably see more use just because they still gain as much as they ever did but with only slightly reduced casting progression. The Hospitaler would still be a cleric PrC with 8th level spell access and bonus combat feats.

P.S. The Shining Blades of Heironeous would still be sitting in the corner with their dunce caps on. Nothing will change that.