Prestige Paladin Reimagined (Please PEACH)

[Jervis]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/75/c6/5c75c6c2f4d20e590fbf93f5d8e9fdb9.jpg

Champions of the gods, carriers of divine will. These warriors are masters of divine powers sent forward into the world to do as their god commands. Chosen by the gods for their dedication, faith, and deeds, they use this power for what their god wills for the world.

Paladins are a underappreciated class for what they are. They're suppose to be champions of the divine, mortal agents of the gods who bring heavenly smackdowns onto thy unholy backside. Unfortunately, they're kind of bad. Most people just take exacrtly 2-4 levels of PrC paladin and go into something better with all the good features frontloaded. Thats why Paladin and PrC paladin are some of the few classes i've banned in my homebrew games in favor of a homebrew paladin rebuild. This one has, on paper, much easier entry requirements that can be entered from basically anything, including human fighter, and still give benefits. However RP requirements make the class something you need to interact with the world to use. I'm making god and domain specific variants framed as ACFs where every major god in the setting has their own paladin variant. The ones here are domain based outside of a few notable ones. Point of "balance" is Knight of the Raven.

This is less of a house rule and more the way i think things should work. Your character knows more about your god's dogma than you do as a character. A DC 5 knowledge (Religion) check reveals what actions would violate a code of conduct. Any creature with at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (religion) always known when an action they are contemplating would violate their god's dogma. No god regardless of alignment would see an action whos unforeseeable consequences would violate their code of conduct as a violation, though they may still expect the one who committed that action to do what they can to manage the fall out.

Yes i hate gotcha your paladin falls DMs. Anyone dedicated to that lifestyle will know what their god would want them to do, the trick is if you want to do that or something in accordance with your own moral code.


Paladin

Requirements
BaB: +4
Skill Ranks: Knowledge (religion) 7
Special: Must have been called to serve as a Paladin by a deity or equally powerful creature after performing some great deed, clerics without a deity must still perform some great task in service of their ideology.

Hit Die: 1d10
Skill Points: 4 + Int
Class Skills: All skills you had previously as class skills.

All clerics must have completed some test of character, noble heroic deed, overcome some great challenge, or otherwise earned the approval and interest of a deity or equally powerful entity, such as a demon price, primordial, fey lord, or what have you. Sometimes a god might open this position to any follower so long as they complete a test required of every successful paladin. Sometimes a god or devil may offer to make a creature their paladin in return for completing a task. Regardless of the method every paladin has completed some difficult challenge to achieve their position.

Clerics of an ideology or ideal, or some other divine casters without a patron god may follow different rules. They might not need the influence of a god but must still complete some great task to qualify. The powers of a paladin cannot be gamed, cheated, or stolen. It must be earned through struggle. As such this serves as a fantastic motivator or quest reward for just about anyone. I'm of the opinion that RP requirements are the best requirements and this should reward a character who makes some great effort to effect the world.



Level
BAB
Fort
Ref
Will
Special


1st
+1
+2
+0
+2
Turn/Rebuke Undead, Detect Good/Evil, Smite Opposition


2nd
+2
+3
+0
+3
Divine Grace, Lay on Hands


3rd
+3
+3
+1
+3
Divine Health, Aura of Courage


4th
+4
+4
+1
+4
Special Mount, Smite Opposition 2/day


5th
+5
+4
+1
+4
Mettle


6th
+6/+1
+5
+2
+5
Divine Weapon


7th
+7/+2
+5
+2
+5
Divine Shield


8th
+8/+3
+6
+2
+6
Smite Opposition 3/day


9th
+9/+4
+6
+3
+6
Divine Insight


10th
+10/+5
+7
+3
+7
Perfection



Spellcasting

At every level except for 1st you advance your spellcasting abilities in one divine spellcasting class of your choice by 1 for determining spells known, spells prepared, caster level, number of spells per day etc.

If you do not have the ability to cast divine spells you instead gain the spellcasting ability of a 1st level cleric at 2nd level. At each level thereafter you advance your spellcasting abilities as if you had gained a level of cleric.

Turn/Rebuke Undead (SU)

Your levels in Paladin stacks with all other classes which grant Turn or Rebuke undead abilities for determining your effective level for turning and rebuking undead. If you do not have the ability to Turn or Rebuke undead, you gain the ability to turn or rebuke undead as a level 5 cleric of your deity and alignment.

Detect Good and Evil (SP)

You can cast the spells Detect Good and Detect Evil at will as a spell like ability.

Smite Opposition (SU)

Once per day when making a melee weapon attack, you may declare your attack to be a smite. When smiting a creature you gain a bonus to your attack roll equal to your charisma modifier, if the creature hit has an alignment that is opposed to your deity's alignment on at least one axis you deal additional damage equal to your paladin level. For example a paladin with a lawful good god would deal additional damage when smiting a creature that is chaotic evil, lawful evil, neutral evil, chaotic neutral, or chaotic good. A paladin of a true neutral deity may deal addition damage when striking a creature that is lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic good, or chaotic evil.

You may use this ability twice per day at level 4 and three times per day at level 8. You may always expend one use of your Turn or Rebuke undead ability to use this feature even if you do not have uses remaining for that day.

Divine Grace (SU)

At 2nd level you gain the ability to add your Charisma modifier to all saving throws.

Lay on Hands (SU)

Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. For example, a 7th-level paladin with a 16 Charisma (+3 bonus) can heal 21 points of damage per day. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn't have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.

Additionally a Paladin can expend 12 points of healing from their pool of lay on hands to cat the remove disease spell.

Divine Health (SU)

At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases (such as mummy rot and lycanthropy).

Aura of Courage

Beginning at 3rd level, a paladin is immune to fear (magical or otherwise). Each ally within 10 feet of her gains a +4 morale bonus on saving throws against fear effects. This ability functions while the paladin is conscious, but not if she is unconscious or dead.

Special Mount

As the paladin feature of the same name.

Mettle (EX)

Starting at 5th level you gain the ability to reduce negative effects you resist. Whenever you succeed on a Fortitude or Will saving throw that would reduce or alter a harmful effect, you instead negate the effect.

Divine Weapon (SU)

Starting at 6th level your unarmed strikes and natural weapons as well as any weapon you hold counts as a aligned weapon with your alignment for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction and immunity to damage, as well as other features such as damaging a creature with regeneration overcome by weapons of a certain alignment. For example a chaotic evil paladin's weapons would count as chaotic and evil for the purposes damaging creatures.

Divine Shield (SU)

At 7th level you gain the ability to enhance your defenses with divine power. You gain a bonus to your touch AC equal to your charisma modifier. This bonus cannot exceed your standard AC.

Divine Insight (SU)

From 9th level and beyond you may use an action to expend a use of your Turn or Rebuke undead ability to grant one creature you can see a bonus to all saving throws equal to your charisma modifier for 10 minutes.

Perfection (SU)

At 10th level your type changes to Outsider. If you die you reform on your deity's home plane within 3d6 weeks. From there you may travel back to the material plane by ordinary means.

[Jervis]

Reserved for deity and domain specific feature ACFs.

[Metastachydium]

Well, 3.5 paladins (from what I hear, they are a much more popular and happy lot in 5e) do absolutely need some love, and thereby I do welcome attempts like this to give them just that, but this is crazy strong and ultimately just serves to make overpowered T1 characters even more overpowered. I mean, it has cleric as its default chassis and a straight cleric 6 entering it gains
1. +10 BAB, and thus four iteratives by level 20 if the last 4 levels are something with 3/4 BAB;
2. +2 skill points per level for 10 levels;
3. d10 hit dice;
4. pretty much all the useful paladin abilities (with none of the restrictions) and mettle;
5. a free unlimited respawning ability as a capstone;
while losing a single effective level of spellcasting, meaning that they only need two levels of whatever that progresses divine casting afterwards to get their 9ths. I think this might be a bit too much.

[Maat Mons]

This is very rambly, but I'm going to go to bed instead of editing it.



Personally, I dislike roleplay requirements. I prefer classes that can easily be dropped into any game. Roleplay requirements force the DM to include specific plot elements. Moreover, they force the DM to include those element at specific times. "Hey guys, we need to put our current quest on hold and go do a story arc that's all about me."

I don't really see why Lawful Neutral Paladins of Lawful Neutral deities and Chaotic Neutral Paladins of Chaotic Neutral deities would go around Detecting Good and Evil.



Does the class give any proficiencies with weapons or armor? Clerics don't generally have martial weapon proficiency. Druids and Archivists don't have heavy armor proficiency.



Turn and Rebuke Undead never struck me as fitting abilities for servants of deities that don't have any particular stance on undead as part of their portfolio. In addition to being thematically inappropriate for many characters, the abilities can also be very niche. The various things that you can power buy spending Turn/Rebuke Undead attempts can keep the ability relevant, but they also cause complications when trying to replace Turn/Rebuke Undead with an ACF that's a better match to your concept.



So, if you're a Cleric 1 / Fighter 4 / Paladin 1, you Turn Undead as a level 2 Cleric. But if you're an Favored Soul 6 / Paladin 1, you Turn Undead as a level 5 Cleric? Seems screwy. The character with more levels in classes that give Turn Undead shouldn't be worse at it.



Thematically, why is the ultimate champion of a deity someone other than a high-level Cleric of that deity? If you imagine the logical progression for a Cleric, a heavily-armored wielder of divine might who isn't afraid to lay the smackdown on heathens, isn't everything from the Paladin concept something that a high-level Cleric should be able to do? So why is the Cleric class 19 levels of nothing? Why do you have to take a prestige class to continue growing into the same archetype your base class was supposed to represent anyway?



Ultimately, Lay on Hands is doing something that your spell slots could already do. Spells are a per-day resource. And Lay on Hands is a per-day resource. Do you really need two different daily pools for accomplishing the same task? If Lay on Hands only exists to help you stretch your spell slots further, I think there are better ways to accomplish that. The Touch of Healing reserve feat is one such option.

Something that seems appropriate to the Paladin concept is healing the sick and injured masses. However, the only class I've ever encountered that was naturally suited to that is Witch, from Pathfinder.



If Smite is going to be fueled by Turn Undead, why even have a separate poll just for Smite? You could just have no dedicated uses of Smite, make it always cost a use of Turn Undead, and then give 3 extra uses of Turn Undead. You get the same total Smites per day, and you don't introduce an extra resource to track.



I really feel like fear immunity could easily be a 1st-level ability. Waiting until ECL 8 to get a basic and not-all-that-powerful part of your archetype seems silly.

[Jervis]

Well, 3.5 paladins (from what I hear, they are a much more popular and happy lot in 5e) do absolutely need some love, and thereby I do welcome attempts like this to give them just that, but this is crazy strong and ultimately just serves to make overpowered T1 characters even more overpowered. I mean, it has cleric as its default chassis and a straight cleric 6 entering it gains
1. +10 BAB, and thus four iteratives by level 20 if the last 4 levels are something with 3/4 BAB;
2. +2 skill points per level for 10 levels;
3. d10 hit dice;
4. pretty much all the useful paladin abilities (with none of the restrictions) and mettle;
5. a free unlimited respawning ability as a capstone;
while losing a single effective level of spellcasting, meaning that they only need two levels of whatever that progresses divine casting afterwards to get their 9ths. I think this might be a bit too much.

Fair point. This was mostly just prestige Paladin with Raven Knight’s chassis since that’s my go to divine PrC for melee characters. I was originally going to remove a lot of Paladin features but like I said this is for a homebrew setting and paladins can’t be a base class for lore reasons. So I feel somewhat obligated to cram those in here. For one thing removing the Paladin steed os probably gonna be one of my starting points since I removed a lot of mounted warrior associations from this anyway and that feature is being moved more or less to a couple other brews anyway. Plus it can be kinda stupid with the dmg rules in play that let you ride a gold dragon. I should probably also dock the hit die down to d8 just to keep it In line with knight off the Raven, which is what I’m basing most of these god specific variants on anyway.


-snip-.

A lot of good points here. I see why a lot of people don’t care for RP reqs but i’m personality a big fan. They run counterintuitive to character builds but of the thing you qualify for is interesting that might make someone change their plans. That’s actually why I made this something a fighter can qualify for (and as i’m typing this I realized that fighters don’t natively have Know religion so that poses a problem). But it’s something I can see why people wouldn’t care for. I might also add the True Believer feat or initiative of x feat as a requirements to this, I think those would be thematic.

As for the other features like I said I felt somewhat obliged to cram in as many Paladin features as possible. Since this has better than Paladin casting even if you enter fighter 4 anyway lay on hands is pretty pointless and just making smite a turn use is a better idea. I was planning on having some other things key if turn uses in the variants anyway so that would be more elegant. I get the complaint about turns and rebukes not fitting all gods but for that i’m kinda pidgeonholed by existing design with A LOT working off those two specifically and not working on variants. I’ll also nix the detect spells, they don’t work for my setting anyway. Good catch on armor profs, I always forget those. Thanks for the feedback.

[RandomPeasant]

At every level except for 1st you advance your spellcasting abilities in one divine spellcasting class of your choice by 1 for determining spells known, spells prepared, caster level, number of spells per day etc.

Don't ding people's casting. It is not the interesting tradeoff designers thought it was, and there are enough alternatives that don't do it that there isn't really a power penalty, just a limit to which concepts are viable. Also, are you supposed to get Paladin spells known? If you are, what happens with non-Good Paladins (which this allows).


Detect Good and Evil (SP)

This should be "Detect Opposition", like Smite is.


Special Mount

As the paladin feature of the same name.

This needs text like the Turning does that adjusts for the fact that Paladin is now a PrC rather than a base class.


You gain a bonus to your touch AC equal to your charisma modifier. This bonus cannot exceed your standard AC.

I'm fairly sure you mean something other than "standard AC" here. The plain meaning here effectively makes the bonus uncapped.


From 9th level and beyond you may use an action to expend a use of your Turn or Rebuke undead ability to grant one creature you can see a bonus to all saving throws equal to your charisma modifier for 10 minutes.

What type of action is this?


1. +10 BAB, and thus four iteratives by level 20 if the last 4 levels are something with 3/4 BAB;

No he doesn't. Clerics get full BAB from divine power.


meaning that they only need two levels of whatever that progresses divine casting afterwards to get their 9ths.

The obsession with "get 9ths at 20th level" is wrongheaded. The cost of lost spellcasting is not what it does at 20th level, it is that at every level your spellcasting is worse than it would be otherwise.


Turn and Rebuke Undead never struck me as fitting abilities for servants of deities that don't have any particular stance on undead as part of their portfolio.

I think that's a fair criticism. The class seems to be in a weird place between the PHB Paladin (which is quite explicitly focused on Law and Good) and a more general Paladin (which could serve a variety of concepts). My view is that the Paladin should be something like a tank/healer, or possibly just drawing explicitly from the Knights Radiant.


Thematically, why is the ultimate champion of a deity someone other than a high-level Cleric of that deity? If you imagine the logical progression for a Cleric, a heavily-armored wielder of divine might who isn't afraid to lay the smackdown on heathens, isn't everything from the Paladin concept something that a high-level Cleric should be able to do? So why is the Cleric class 19 levels of nothing? Why do you have to take a prestige class to continue growing into the same archetype your base class was supposed to represent anyway?

Well, that's a whole other thing. My take is that the Cleric class should not exist at all, and that the champions of the gods should be drawn from classes appropriate to those gods. If Boccob is the god of Knowledge and Magic, his champions should be Wizards (a class focused on Knowledge and Magic), not Clerics (a class he would share with gods of Ignorance and Hating Magic). Maybe you hand out a feat or short PrC or ACF that gives some basic healing/banishment powers, but honestly maybe not.


Ultimately, Lay on Hands is doing something that your spell slots could already do. Spells are a per-day resource. And Lay on Hands is a per-day resource. Do you really need two different daily pools for accomplishing the same task? If Lay on Hands only exists to help you stretch your spell slots further, I think there are better ways to accomplish that. The Touch of Healing reserve feat is one such option.

I think that's only really a problem for Clerics, who can trade in their spells for healing automatically. For a Druid or a Favored Soul having a separate pool of healing that is distinct from their pool of animal summoning or general divine magic is fine.

[Metastachydium]

No he doesn't. Clerics get full BAB from divine power.

Which is a round/level deal that can be dispelled or AMFed away. Anyhow, the fact that spells can arguably do even better is hardly a good argument that probably the strongest base class (a versatile full caster that's also a gish-in-a-box) needs more power.


The obsession with "get 9ths at 20th level" is wrongheaded. The cost of lost spellcasting is not what it does at 20th level, it is that at every level your spellcasting is worse than it would be otherwise.

I don't think that's half as dramatic as you suggest it is, especially since the loss of a single level still leaves them on par with spontaneous casters progression-wise, while they can still know more than five spells, can use DMM and get actual class features plus superior base stats.

[RandomPeasant]

Which is a round/level deal that can be dispelled or AMFed away. Anyhow, the fact that spells can arguably do even better is hardly a good argument that probably the strongest base class (a versatile full caster that's also a gish-in-a-box) needs more power.

It's a Personal spell, which can be made Persistent. And the point is that full BAB is just not that impressive of an ability, especially for a martial Cleric, who is going to get it anyway. For most of the game, the difference between full BAB and average BAB is less than the difference between a good Strength score and an average one.


I don't think that's half as dramatic as you suggest it is, especially since the loss of a single level still leaves them on par with spontaneous casters progression-wise, while they can still know more than five spells, can use DMM and get actual class features plus superior base stats.

And the difference between prepared spellcasters and spontaneous ones is enough to put the latter down an entire tier. Yes, some of that is the latter knowing five spells, but a good deal of it is slower progression (as can be seen with the Dread Necromancer or Beguiler, who know plenty of spells and can easily learn more). But more to the point, the reality is that there are plenty of PrCs out there which do give full casting progression, and as long as they exist there's no justification for ones that give only partial progression. Especially when Dweomerkeeper and Incantatrix are in the full casting pile.

[Metastachydium]

It's a Personal spell, which can be made Persistent. And the point is that full BAB is just not that impressive of an ability, especially for a martial Cleric, who is going to get it anyway. For most of the game, the difference between full BAB and average BAB is less than the difference between a good Strength score and an average one.

Well, Divine Power is a 4th level spell. You need what? A CHA score of 18 to persist it using DMM (in case you don't plan on persisting anything else that day)?
Also, again, that clerics are already way better off than classes that get d10s, class features and full BAB as a consolation price hardly means that they need more power.


And the difference between prepared spellcasters and spontaneous ones is enough to put the latter down an entire tier. Yes, some of that is the latter knowing five spells, but a good deal of it is slower progression (as can be seen with the Dread Necromancer or Beguiler, who know plenty of spells and can easily learn more).

Yes, it is a major factor, but the thing is, they usually get nothing and sometimes literally nothing in return (khm, sorcere, khm).
As for the fixed-list classes, their generally very narrow focus as a detriment is not to be underestimated.


But more to the point, the reality is that there are plenty of PrCs out there which do give full casting progression, and as long as they exist there's no justification for ones that give only partial progression.

Well, many of those are much harder to enter than this one or give less for your money in terms of stats. Yes, we do have


Dweomerkeeper and Incantatrix

and the like, but those are just plain broken. It's like arguing that PrCs should give full casting (1 to 9) in 10 levels because Ur-Priest is a thing.

[RandomPeasant]

Well, Divine Power is a 4th level spell. You need what? A CHA score of 18 to persist it using DMM (in case you don't plan on persisting anything else that day)?

Or just Extra Turning. But a Cleric that is going to pursue martial approaches to problem-solving will invest in ways to increase their CHA, get bonus turning attempts, reduce the cost of DMM: Persistent, or all three.


Also, again, that clerics are already way better off than classes that get d10s, class features and full BAB as a consolation price hardly means that they need more power.

Is this class more powerful than Dweomerkeeper? Is it stronger than Hathran or Contemplative? Is it stronger than just using animate dead and planar ally to have a bunch of allies? Yes, the Cleric is very powerful. But part of being very powerful is that it doesn't matter very much if you get minor powers like +3 to hit over ten levels.


As for the fixed-list classes, their generally very narrow focus as a detriment is not to be underestimated.

People say this, but have you taken a look at their actual lists? Sure, the Warmage is "fire blasting" and "cold blasting" and "acid blasting" (though even they get a couple of BFC spells). But go read through the Beguiler's 3rd level spells or the Dread Necromancer's 4th level spells some time. It's a lot more flexible than you'd think from how people talk about them. Plus, those classes have literally the most favorable setup in the game for adding stuff to your spell list.


but those are just plain broken.

Says who? I will grant that they are better than classes that ding your casting progression, but it is equally true that those classes are worse. The argument becomes circular rather immediately. Now, I will admit that Incantatrix is among the most powerful PrCs in the game, but you can find many examples of less powerful PrCs that are still full progression. Is Mage of the Arcane Order unacceptably powerful? Should Loremaster or Master Specialist be ignored because they are broken? Is it game-breaking that you can get all the divination-themed goodness of Divine Oracle without losing caster levels? Does Abjurant Champion need to be taken down a peg because it offers full casting and full BAB for prerequisites an elf can meet accidentally by 10th level? At a certain point, trying to tune all the PrCs that grant full casting to still be appealing at partial progression is just more work than saying "everyone is full progression" and accepting that you need to give martials a bigger buff than you were going to need to give them anyway.


It's like arguing that PrCs should give full casting (1 to 9) in 10 levels because Ur-Priest is a thing.

Well, why shouldn't that happen? Certainly if you enter a PrC at 6th level, it seems reasonable that you should get at least 8th level spells out of it by 15th level, as that's what you would get if you had never touched the PrC at all. I think you can reasonably argue that getting 9th level spells a full three levels before anyone else gets them is overpowered, but so too is relying on 3rd level spells a full three levels after everyone else has stopped doing that underpowered. Now, I think you can reasonably say that sort of power now for power later scheme is problematic, and that's my position, but isn't that exactly what giving up a level of casting at 6th level because of PrC features you won't get until 15th level is?

[Metastachydium]

Or just Extra Turning. But a Cleric that is going to pursue martial approaches to problem-solving will invest in ways to increase their CHA, get bonus turning attempts, reduce the cost of DMM: Persistent, or all three.

Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic, a couple of Extra TurningsÂ… That's a lot of feats. Getting good BAB for free plus a lot of other things to do with a boosted CHA score still sounds cheaper, even with a STR item thrown in.



Is this class more powerful than Dweomerkeeper? Is it stronger than Hathran or Contemplative? Is it stronger than just using animate dead and planar ally to have a bunch of allies? Yes, the Cleric is very powerful. But part of being very powerful is that it doesn't matter very much if you get minor powers like +3 to hit over ten levels.



People say this, but have you taken a look at their actual lists? Sure, the Warmage is "fire blasting" and "cold blasting" and "acid blasting" (though even they get a couple of BFC spells). But go read through the Beguiler's 3rd level spells or the Dread Necromancer's 4th level spells some time. It's a lot more flexible than you'd think from how people talk about them. Plus, those classes have literally the most favorable setup in the game for adding stuff to your spell list.

I know those spell lists, thank you very much, especially the beguiler's. It has some serious blind spots, especially compared to wizard and cleric lists. Also, just to be clear, with "literally the most favourable setup" and all that, are you just way overselling Advanced Learning or is this about some rainbow beguiler level equine faeces? Because unless it's the latter, that's either irrelevant (since they never get to compete with cleric/wizard) or a tough statement to prove (archivists and sha'irs are a thing, you know).




Says who? I will grant that they are better than classes that ding your casting progression, but it is equally true that those classes are worse. The argument becomes circular rather immediately. Now, I will admit that Incantatrix is among the most powerful PrCs in the game, but you can find many examples of less powerful PrCs that are still full progression. Is Mage of the Arcane Order unacceptably powerful? Should Loremaster or Master Specialist be ignored because they are broken? Is it game-breaking that you can get all the divination-themed goodness of Divine Oracle without losing caster levels? Does Abjurant Champion need to be taken down a peg because it offers full casting and full BAB for prerequisites an elf can meet accidentally by 10th level?

Let's not pretend everything's about casting progression. Mystic Theurge is generally considered garbage, Loremaster is fun but not superstrong. Meanwhile, Ruby Knight Vindicator is kind of well-regarded for what it does, despite not granting full casting progression. As for Abjurant Champion, it is a marvelous, powerful class I like a lot. It's also a mere 5 levels long and not that easy to enter before level 10 unless you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot. You also technically lose something, namely a free metamagic feat and most Knowledge skills. And, at any rate, most classes with a full casting progression don't improve the base class's base stats in literally every conceivable way (better HD, better BAB, more skill points, better class features, all in one package).


At a certain point, trying to tune all the PrCs that grant full casting to still be appealing at partial progression is just more work than saying "everyone is full progression" and accepting that you need to give martials a bigger buff than you were going to need to give them anyway.

Martials need a bigger buff so let's give big buffs to casters so that they stay ahead anyway? I don't mind full progression per se, it has its place. But "casters deserve it by default, regardless of what else they get alongside that" is not really a position I care to get behind.


Well, why shouldn't that happen? Certainly if you enter a PrC at 6th level, it seems reasonable that you should get at least 8th level spells out of it by 15th level, as that's what you would get if you had never touched the PrC at all. I think you can reasonably argue that getting 9th level spells a full three levels before anyone else gets them is overpowered, but so too is relying on 3rd level spells a full three levels after everyone else has stopped doing that underpowered. Now, I think you can reasonably say that sort of power now for power later scheme is problematic, and that's my position, but isn't that exactly what giving up a level of casting at 6th level because of PrC features you won't get until 15th level is?

Poor Ur-Priest! Such a useless, underpowered class! Never mind that it catches up with everyone else at level 10 and gets its 9ths three levels before everyone else.

[RandomPeasant]

Extend Spell, Persistent Spell, Divine Metamagic, a couple of Extra TurningsÂ… That's a lot of feats.

What else does the DMM Cleric want to spend their feats on?


Also, just to be clear, with "literally the most favourable setup" and all that, are you just way overselling Advanced Learning or is this about some rainbow beguiler level equine faeces?

The setup is that they know all the spells on their list and can cast all of those spells as long as they have spell slots. What setup do you imagine would be more favorable than that?


(archivists and sha'irs are a thing, you know).

The Archivist has a terrible mechanic for adding spells to their list, because adding a spell to the Archivist's list doesn't do anything. They still have to go out and spend the money to learn the spell, then prepare it. Conversely if you add a spell to your list as a Beguiler, you can just cast that spell. The Archivist has a much bigger baseline list, but that is of course a separate question. Sha'ir, as I understand it, is similar.


Let's not pretend everything's about casting progression. Mystic Theurge is generally considered garbage,

But that's because get in you need to lose casting progression!


Meanwhile, Ruby Knight Vindicator is kind of well-regarded for what it does, despite not granting full casting progression.

Of course it's "well-regarded", it's the only class that does the thing it does. By definition, that makes it the best class if you want to play a character with divine spellcasting and martial maneuvers. That doesn't mean it's particularly well-designed (even setting aside the mechanics entirely, the class focusing on Wee Jas of all things is pretty bizarre).


And, at any rate, most classes with a full casting progression don't improve the base class's base stats in literally every conceivable way (better HD, better BAB, more skill points, better class features, all in one package).

Why is improving something in a lot of ways important? Imagine, as a Wizard, you had the option of a PrC with a d6 hit die, average BAB, a good Reflex save, 4 skill points per level, and a metamagic feat progression that got you one additional feat relative to Wizard levels. Would you take that PrC instead of Master Specialist or Mage of the Arcane Order? I wouldn't, but it certainly improves on the Wizard in a wider variety of ways than they do.


Martials need a bigger buff so let's give big buffs to casters so that they stay ahead anyway?

Making individual PrCs better isn't a buff to casters, because it doesn't increase their power ceiling. Imagine, for a moment, that every single partial-progression PrC was full-progression instead? Is any of them better than the best PrCs that are currently full-progression? How many of them are even better than the average full-progression PrC right now? If you make Acolyte of the Skin full progression, you haven't made casters better, because the best caster build wouldn't take levels of Acolyte of the Skin even if it had full progression and you qualified automatically at 6th level. Insisting that we preserve bad caster-related design decisions just because martials are worse off is just crab bucketing. Design casters to work well, then give martials whatever buffs they need to get to that level.


Poor Ur-Priest! Such a useless, underpowered class! Never mind that it catches up with everyone else at level 10 and gets its 9ths three levels before everyone else.

Which means it spends as many levels behind as it does ahead (indeed, more, because it is also behind once regular casters get 9th level spells and Ur-Priest doesn't progress anymore). Rather than sarcasm, do you have a substantive reason why that is the wrong way for power now for power later trades to work, given that we accept those trades in the first place?

[Metastachydium]

What else does the DMM Cleric want to spend their feats on?

We were talking about a cleric that wants to pursue a martial approach to stuff.


The setup is that they know all the spells on their list and can cast all of those spells as long as they have spell slots. What setup do you imagine would be more favorable than that?

The Archivist has a terrible mechanic for adding spells to their list, because adding a spell to the Archivist's list doesn't do anything. They still have to go out and spend the money to learn the spell, then prepare it. Conversely if you add a spell to your list as a Beguiler, you can just cast that spell. The Archivist has a much bigger baseline list, but that is of course a separate question. Sha'ir, as I understand it, is similar.

Ah, I get it! We aren't even talking about the same thing! Yes, fixed-list casting's huge fun and I love it, but their default method of expanding their list of spells known only allows them to add 5 wizard spells from two schools, and not even the strongest ones for that matter. I brought up archivists because they can add any divine spell to their list if they can get their hands on it. It's just a matter of luck/resources.


Why is improving something in a lot of ways important? Imagine, as a Wizard, you had the option of a PrC with a d6 hit die, average BAB, a good Reflex save, 4 skill points per level, and a metamagic feat progression that got you one additional feat relative to Wizard levels. Would you take that PrC instead of Master Specialist or Mage of the Arcane Order? I wouldn't, but it certainly improves on the Wizard in a wider variety of ways than they do.

Imagine a gish PrC with full progression but a d6, 2 skill points/level and medium BAB (essentially, an Eldritch Knight that loses a feature you call unimportant and gains an extra level of spellcasting). Would you take it over another with a d10, full BAB and 4 skill points/level but a bonus feat at level 1 or 2 rather than spellcasting?


Making individual PrCs better isn't a buff to casters, because it doesn't increase their power ceiling.

Well, Tier 0s a thing or so they say.


Imagine, for a moment, that every single partial-progression PrC was full-progression instead? Is any of them better than the best PrCs that are currently full-progression? How many of them are even better than the average full-progression PrC right now? If you make Acolyte of the Skin full progression, you haven't made casters better, because the best caster build wouldn't take levels of Acolyte of the Skin even if it had full progression and you qualified automatically at 6th level. Insisting that we preserve bad caster-related design decisions just because martials are worse off is just crab bucketing. Design casters to work well, then give martials whatever buffs they need to get to that level.

So the key to happiness is good class features rather than full progression?


Which means it spends as many levels behind as it does ahead (indeed, more, because it is also behind once regular casters get 9th level spells and Ur-Priest doesn't progress anymore). Rather than sarcasm, do you have a substantive reason why that is the wrong way for power now for power later trades to work, given that we accept those trades in the first place?

That's only an issue if you let it become one. Ur-Priest is one of the options that lets theurge classes really shine, and that's hardly the only way to abuse the class.

[RandomPeasant]

We were talking about a cleric that wants to pursue a martial approach to stuff.

That doesn't answer the question.


Yes, fixed-list casting's huge fun and I love it, but their default method of expanding their list of spells known only allows them to add 5 wizard spells from two schools,

By that standard the Archivist's default method of expanding their list is nothing. They get Cleric spells on level up, and they get no additional spells from their class features. If you want to talk about scribing spells into your book form scrolls, they you have to talk about Rainbow Servant and Prestige Domains and Bloodline feats and Arcane Disciple and Runestaves and all the other toys that fixed-list casters get.


Would you take it over another with a d10, full BAB and 4 skill points/level but a bonus feat at level 1 or 2 rather than spellcasting?

Not from a power level perspective. Which is the issue. I agree that the latter class is better as a gish, but if it is worse overall, you are demanding that people sacrifice character power if they happen to like a particular concept. That's a bad design.


So the key to happiness is good class features rather than full progression?

What "rather than"? Right now you can get good class features and full progression. Demanding that you get partial progression to get bad class features is just spitting in the face of people who like concepts that aren't supported with full-casting PrCs. If someone wants to play a green robot man, they should be able to do that while remaining reasonably effective. By far the simplest way of achieving that end is to declare that Green Star Adept advances casting at every level and have done. The alternative requires a mind-boggling amount of work, and probably doesn't even get you to a more balanced result.


That's only an issue if you let it become one. Ur-Priest is one of the options that lets theurge classes really shine, and that's hardly the only way to abuse the class.

I don't understand how this is responsive to what I said at all.

[Metastachydium]

That doesn't answer the question.

It doesn't have to either. Not directly, anyway. The gist of what I said is this: if the cleric wants to wade into melee and hit things, the cleric will normally load up on DMM-related stuff. But if the cleric gets stuff the cleric would need persisted buffs for from a PrC, feat slots are freed up for other martial-oriented options.


By that standard the Archivist's default method of expanding their list is nothing. They get Cleric spells on level up, and they get no additional spells from their class features. If you want to talk about scribing spells into your book form scrolls, they you have to talk about Rainbow Servant and Prestige Domains and Bloodline feats and Arcane Disciple and Runestaves and all the other toys that fixed-list casters get.

?
That the archivist may scribe any divine spell, regardless of its list of origin to his prayerbook is part of the Prayerbook class feature. It's right there in the decscription of the class and unlike other classes, it can do it natively, without recourse to splatdelving. How's that the same thing as abusing a PrC quite evidently not designed with fixed-list casters in mind or taking Dragon Compendium feats?
(Also, Arcane Disciple is a really cool toy and I like it, but it doesn't add spells to your beguiler's spell list. It merely gives the beguiler (or any other arcane caster) to cast one domain spell/level once a day using a slot.)


Not from a power level perspective. Which is the issue. I agree that the latter class is better as a gish, but if it is worse overall, you are demanding that people sacrifice character power if they happen to like a particular concept. That's a bad design.

I still fail to see how trading something for something else to be better at what you want to do is bad design. Also, a class such as this (the prestige paladin, not the hypothetical thing) is meant to make a cleric or whatever a gishy or gishier character with a holy warrior flavour, and as such, it doesn't need full progression to succeed at its intended purpose. I find "but this infamous caster PrC combination is so much stronger than anything in the game, why would you settle for less" a useless metric.


What "rather than"? Right now you can get good class features and full progression. Demanding that you get partial progression to get bad class features is just spitting in the face of people who like concepts that aren't supported with full-casting PrCs.

I don't get your point. I don't think I ever said that PrCs that are bad at everything are good or well designed.


If someone wants to play a green robot man, they should be able to do that while remaining reasonably effective. By far the simplest way of achieving that end is to declare that Green Star Adept advances casting at every level and have done. The alternative requires a mind-boggling amount of work, and probably doesn't even get you to a more balanced result.

If someone wants to play a green robot man for flavour, they don't have to end up as a green robot ubercaster to remain effective, unless you want to argue that any class without full casting should just be removed from the game for being ineffective. Green Star Adept's problem is that it wants to be two things: a caster and a green robot man, and it fails at both, partly because there's little synergy between its two conceptual halves. If it had full progression, or no progression at all but useful stats and stuff it could work.


I don't understand how this is responsive to what I said at all.

You said Ur-Priest is not particularly strong because it gats off the ground late and trades power now for power later. I said neither's an issue, since due to the peculiarities of the class, combined with an arcane casting chassis, it can use theurge castings to pretty consistently stay ahead, among other ways to abuse it.

[RandomPeasant]

But if the cleric gets stuff the cleric would need persisted buffs for from a PrC, feat slots are freed up for other martial-oriented options.

But this PrC doesn't let a Cleric do that. You still have average BAB and d8 HD for your Cleric levels, so the PrC doesn't even do everything divine power does if you ignore the Strength bonus. Plus you're likely to have at least two Persistent buffs, in which case the class is also not giving you the bonuses of righteous might.


That the archivist may scribe any divine spell, regardless of its list of origin to his prayerbook is part of the Prayerbook class feature.

Which would seem to make their list "all divine spells", right? It's not "expanding your spell list" when the Wizard scribes a spell from a scroll, it's just learning a spell. Same thing with the Archivist. It is certainly true that the Archivist's spell list is very large, but the class is not particularly good at expanding it. If you take a feat or a PrC that adds some spells to your spell list, nothing special happens. You still have to go out an scribe them into your book for money like any other spell.


How's that the same thing as abusing a PrC quite evidently not designed with fixed-list casters in mind or taking Dragon Compendium feats?

It is not "abusing" a PrC to take it to do the thing it does simply because that thing happens to be very powerful. In fact, Rainbow Servant isn't even particularly good in most games, because it is incredibly empty for the first nine levels. If you are not confident you will get to spend a significant amount of time with the capstone, you are better off bailing after you get the Good domain and doing other things to add additional spells to your list.


I still fail to see how trading something for something else to be better at what you want to do is bad design.

Can you articulate the limiting principle by which this does not imply that all balance issues are totally fine? Your view seems to be that if someone is "powerful enough" they should be fine getting kicked in the teeth a little, but that is again nothing more than the mentality of crabs in a bucket.


If it had full progression, or no progression at all but useful stats and stuff it could work.

How do you imagine that a PrC that wants to be a caster but offers no casting progression could work?


You said Ur-Priest is not particularly strong because it gats off the ground late and trades power now for power later. I said neither's an issue, since due to the peculiarities of the class, combined with an arcane casting chassis, it can use theurge castings to pretty consistently stay ahead, among other ways to abuse it.

So your suggestion is that the correct way to play an Ur-Priest is to play a theurge of some sort that keeps full progression of another class and layers Ur-Priest on top? Isn't that admitting that you'd consider Ur-Priest itself underpowered? Suppose Mystic Theurge and its derivatives didn't exist. Would you then be fine with Ur-Priest?

[Metastachydium]

But this PrC doesn't let a Cleric do that. You still have average BAB and d8 HD for your Cleric levels, so the PrC doesn't even do everything divine power does if you ignore the Strength bonus. Plus you're likely to have at least two Persistent buffs, in which case the class is also not giving you the bonuses of righteous might.

Well, two persisted spells needs 5 feat by default with a CHA of 18. Persisting one to rely more on items and better BAB frees up two spell slots and you can still spam Enlarge Persons or whatever. They are cheap.


Which would seem to make their list "all divine spells", right? It's not "expanding your spell list" when the Wizard scribes a spell from a scroll, it's just learning a spell. Same thing with the Archivist. It is certainly true that the Archivist's spell list is very large, but the class is not particularly good at expanding it. If you take a feat or a PrC that adds some spells to your spell list, nothing special happens. You still have to go out an scribe them into your book for money like any other spell.

Technically, it has automatic access to the cleris list and has to acquire other divine spells otherwise, but alright. I won't argue semantics. All that means, then, that it doesn't really have to expand its list, because a beguiler's will always be smaller and less versatile, no matter how many spells it adds "easily".


It is not "abusing" a PrC to take it to do the thing it does simply because that thing happens to be very powerful.

Combining it with fixed-listers is what makes it skyrocket through the ceiling, and I'm pretty sure it was not intended to do that.


In fact, Rainbow Servant isn't even particularly good in most games, because it is incredibly empty for the first nine levels. If you are not confident you will get to spend a significant amount of time with the capstone, you are better off bailing after you get the Good domain and doing other things to add additional spells to your list.

True, but if you start at a high enough levcel, it's cheesy as hell.


Can you articulate the limiting principle by which this does not imply that all balance issues are totally fine?

?
Which part of "to be better at what you want to do" is not clear enough? Low-tier classes limit one's options significantly without offering much other than flavour (if that (khm, fighter, khm)) in return.


How do you imagine that a PrC that wants to be a caster but offers no casting progression could work?

I don't, obviously?
We were talking about green robots. One can be a perfectly fine green robot without casting spells and a perfectly good caster without being a green robot.


So your suggestion is that the correct way to play an Ur-Priest is to play a theurge of some sort that keeps full progression of another class and layers Ur-Priest on top? Isn't that admitting that you'd consider Ur-Priest itself underpowered? Suppose Mystic Theurge and its derivatives didn't exist. Would you then be fine with Ur-Priest?

In a vacuum, Ur-Priest becomes more niche, but not underpowered per se. Not that "in a vacuum" is a very useful metric.

[RandomPeasant]

Well, two persisted spells needs 5 feat by default with a CHA of 18. Persisting one to rely more on items and better BAB frees up two spell slots and you can still spam Enlarge Persons or whatever. They are cheap.

Persisting one spell still costs you three feats. If that's all you're going to get, there are better ways to spend your resources.


because a beguiler's will always be smaller and less versatile, no matter how many spells it adds "easily".

Their list will be smaller, but they cast spontaneously. Being able to learn fifty spells at every level instead of twenty when you have to pick out your spells every morning just means there are thirty more spells you don't prepare.


Combining it with fixed-listers is what makes it skyrocket through the ceiling, and I'm pretty sure it was not intended to do that.

Then why does it work that way? IIRC, the FAQ explicitly confirmed that it does, so insofar as we have any way of determining "intent" in this question, the designers did intend that.


True, but if you start at a high enough levcel, it's cheesy as hell.

So are a lot of things at high level. I won't claim that Rainbow Servant is perfectly-designed, but if you're going to let Archivists dig through every book in the game for spells, complaining about Rainbow Servant isn't really reasonable.


Which part of "to be better at what you want to do" is not clear enough? Low-tier classes limit one's options significantly without offering much other than flavour (if that (khm, fighter, khm)) in return.

What part of "be a Fighter" is something people are incapable of wanting to do? It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of things people might want to do are flavor-based, and therefore might be best done by a low-tier class. Suppose some wants to have name-based magic. Truenamer is the best way to do that, from a flavor perspective. Does that make Truenamer fine because it makes people who want to have name magic better at doing what they want to do? What about the people who want a non-ToB martial artist and decide to pick Monk?


In a vacuum, Ur-Priest becomes more niche, but not underpowered per se. Not that "in a vacuum" is a very useful metric.

On the contrary. "In a vacuum" is a fine metric. If Ur-Priest is fine on its own, but a problem with Mystic Theurge, that tells you that the interaction is the problem. To go from that to Ur-Priest being the problem you have to show that it is for whatever reason better to have Mystic Theurges than Ur-Priests.

[Metastachydium]

Persisting one spell still costs you three feats. If that's all you're going to get, there are better ways to spend your resources.

Two free feat slots on a build that doesn't get bonus feats is not quite as bad as you paint it to be, and if you get always-on effective full BAB from PrC BAB and items, while doing a Righteous Might lite with low level slots you wouldn't use for much anyway, you might not even need to persist stuff if you'd do it for those two buffs. (Feel free to move the goalpost farther, though.)


Their list will be smaller, but they cast spontaneously. Being able to learn fifty spells at every level instead of twenty when you have to pick out your spells every morning just means there are thirty more spells you don't prepare.

I think you might be overstating the number of spells a beguiler can acquire at a given level while seriously understating the number of divine spells in the game.


Then why does it work that way? IIRC, the FAQ explicitly confirmed that it does, so insofar as we have any way of determining "intent" in this question, the designers did intend that.

The FAQ was not produced by the designers themselves and, well, let's say there might be a reason why it is not generally accepted as an authoritative source.


So are a lot of things at high level. I won't claim that Rainbow Servant is perfectly-designed, but if you're going to let Archivists dig through every book in the game for spells, complaining about Rainbow Servant isn't really reasonable.

Rainbow beguilers exploit a loophole; the archivist's access to various lists, in turn, is not a loophole or the result of an unexpected combination.


What part of "be a Fighter" is something people are incapable of wanting to do? It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of things people might want to do are flavor-based, and therefore might be best done by a low-tier class. Suppose some wants to have name-based magic. Truenamer is the best way to do that, from a flavor perspective. Does that make Truenamer fine because it makes people who want to have name magic better at doing what they want to do? What about the people who want a non-ToB martial artist and decide to pick Monk?

Seriously? I referred to the tier system specifically to establish that I'm talking about in-game roles and capabilities. What does fighter make your character better at? Or a class like truenamer that actively punishes you from levelling up with the Truespeak DCs?

Classes like fighter, monk or swashbuckler do have the right to exist, of course, but normally they are only useful as dips.


On the contrary. "In a vacuum" is a fine metric. If Ur-Priest is fine on its own, but a problem with Mystic Theurge, that tells you that the interaction is the problem. To go from that to Ur-Priest being the problem you have to show that it is for whatever reason better to have Mystic Theurges than Ur-Priests.

You want me to demonstrate that having many low level spells is somehow better than getting early 9ths from a class that essentially only has spellcasting as a class feature?

Edit: We are clogging up poor Jervis's thread with a discussion that hasn't really been about their class for a while now. Should we relocate to the 3.5 subforum?

[ThanatosZero]

Spellcasting

At every level except for 1st you advance your spellcasting abilities in one divine spellcasting class of your choice by 1 for determining spells known, spells prepared, caster level, number of spells per day etc.

If you do not have the ability to cast divine spells you instead gain the spellcasting ability of a 1st level cleric at 2nd level. At each level thereafter you advance your spellcasting abilities as if you had gained a level of cleric.

I would add the following:
If you decide to gain levels of cleric later, these stack as normal.

If you are a divine spontanous caster, each time you gain a new paladin level, you learn one additional spells known of any level you can cast, chosen from the paladin spell list.





Turn/Rebuke Undead (SU)

Your levels in Paladin stacks with all other classes which grant Turn or Rebuke undead abilities for determining your effective level for turning and rebuking undead. If you do not have the ability to Turn or Rebuke undead, you gain the ability to turn or rebuke undead as a level 5 cleric of your deity and alignment.
Here a suggestion.

If you do not have the ability to Turn or Rebuke undead at the time you enter this prestige class, you gain the ability to turn or rebuke undead as cleric of your deity and alignment, using your caster level of your divine spellcasting class to determine your effective turning level. If you have neither, you gain +2 caster level of cleric spellcasting, but no spells per day and known.
If you later gain cleric levels, you still use your caster level of cleric spellcasting.

Practiced Spellcaster boosts it to +6.





Detect Good and Evil (SP)

You can cast the spells Detect Good and Detect Evil at will as a spell like ability.

I suggest that a Paladin should be able cast all allignment spells at will.





Lay on Hands (SU)

Beginning at 2nd level, a paladin with a Charisma score of 12 or higher can heal wounds (her own or those of others) by touch. Each day she can heal a total number of hit points of damage equal to her paladin level × her Charisma bonus. For example, a 7th-level paladin with a 16 Charisma (+3 bonus) can heal 21 points of damage per day. A paladin may choose to divide her healing among multiple recipients, and she doesn't have to use it all at once. Using lay on hands is a standard action.

Alternatively, a paladin can use any or all of this healing power to deal damage to undead creatures. Using lay on hands in this way requires a successful melee touch attack and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The paladin decides how many of her daily allotment of points to use as damage after successfully touching an undead creature.

Additionally a Paladin can expend 12 points of healing from their pool of lay on hands to cat the remove disease spell.

How about basing the total amount of healing more of the cleric's Pool of Healing ACF?





Special Mount

As the paladin feature of the same name.

My suggestion:
As the paladin feature of the same name, except treat the prestige paladin's effective level twice when calculating the mount's bonus Hit Dice, powers, and so forth.





Divine Shield (SU)

At 7th level you gain the ability to enhance your defenses with divine power. You gain a bonus to your touch AC equal to your charisma modifier. This bonus cannot exceed your standard AC.

My suggestion:
If you had the Divine Shield feat, before gaining this class feature, you immediatly trade the feat in for a feat you qualify. The Divine Shield class feature counts as the Divine Shield feat for all purposes.





Perfection (SU)

At 10th level your type changes to Outsider. If you die you reform on your deity's home plane within 3d6 weeks. From there you may travel back to the material plane by ordinary means.

How about this?
Let us add some native outsider in the mix.

At 10th level your type changes to Outsider. If you have still a mortal body at the time, you are treated as a native Outsider for as long you live in it. In addition, if your mortal body is killed or dies of natural causes, you spawn 1 round later as a Outsider, with all your mortal possessions on your being.

With your consent, the corpse of your mortal body is still subject to spells, which restore life. You still experience the drawback of the spells, if you are restored to your mortal body.
When your mortal body dies of old age, as a exception the spell "Reincarnate" can be used on your mortal body, as if you were killed as a middle aged mortal, but with the drawback of losing two HDs, instead of one.
If you die as a Outsider, you reform on your deity's home plane within 3d6 weeks. From there you may travel back to the material plane by ordinary means.

[RandomPeasant]

Two free feat slots on a build that doesn't get bonus feats is not quite as bad as you paint it to be, and if you get always-on effective full BAB from PrC BAB and items, while doing a Righteous Might lite with low level slots you wouldn't use for much anyway, you might not even need to persist stuff if you'd do it for those two buffs. (Feel free to move the goalpost farther, though.

So, let me ask you, if you can get full BAB from items and enlarge person is a fine substitute for righteous might, why are people playing DMM Clerics in the first place? Because if your thesis is correct, that getting most of some of the bonuses of divine power is a fine replacement for it, it seems awfully strange that people think this build is as powerful as they do.


I think you might be overstating the number of spells a beguiler can acquire at a given level while seriously understating the number of divine spells in the game.

I think you might be confusing specific numbers with a general principle. The point is that no matter how many spells the Archivist has in their book, they prepare a limited number each day, while the Beguiler can choose to use each spell slot for whatever spell is best in the moment. At a certain (pretty early, honestly) point, you get more from options during the day than changing your options between days. Though, of course, the Beguiler is perfectly capable of doing that too.


The FAQ was not produced by the designers themselves and, well, let's say there might be a reason why it is not generally accepted as an authoritative source.

Do you have any evidence at all for your position that the mechanical interaction in question was not intended?


Rainbow beguilers exploit a loophole; the archivist's access to various lists, in turn, is not a loophole or the result of an unexpected combination.

Why? What makes "this prestige class interacts with my spellcasting mechanic well" a loophole, but "this prestige class existing interacts with my spellcasting mechanic well" totally fine?


Seriously? I referred to the tier system specifically to establish that I'm talking about in-game roles and capabilities. What does fighter make your character better at? Or a class like truenamer that actively punishes you from levelling up with the Truespeak DCs?

Then let's talk about the Warblade. Surely you can agree that the Warblade, being the highest-tier version of the swordsman archetype, represents a tradeoff where your character becomes "better at what they want to do" in exchange for losing other abilities. Does that mean the Warblade is mechanically fine and does not need to be altered?


You want me to demonstrate that having many low level spells is somehow better than getting early 9ths from a class that essentially only has spellcasting as a class feature?

Your argument, as I understand it, is that Ur-Priest is problematic because you can get nearly full casting progression on top of Ur-Priest progression with Mystic Theurge. My question is why you think that means Ur-Priest is the problem. I'm not asking why Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge is better than Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, I'm asking why a game with Mystic Theurges but not Ur-Priests is better than the opposite.

[Metastachydium]

So, let me ask you, if you can get full BAB from items and enlarge person is a fine substitute for righteous might, why are people playing DMM Clerics in the first place? Because if your thesis is correct, that getting most of some of the bonuses of divine power is a fine replacement for it, it seems awfully strange that people think this build is as powerful as they do.

You don't get full BAB from items, though. In this hypothetical case, you get most of that from PrC levels, if such levels are available. STR items and the like mainly just supplement it. The THP Divine Power gives is not a huge deal and there are ways to work around the +6 STR thing. Righteous Might, in the meantime, is superior to Enlarge Person (who would have thought!), but the latter still has its benefits. The DEX penalty doesn't hurt that much if one relies on armour anyway, but a dispelled EP is cheap and easy to bring back. A persisted RM and the turn attempt cost involved, well, not so much.

DMM is, of course still a very powerful tool. However, good buffs on the cleric list are aplenty. If you can substitute DP and RM with stuff you effectively get for free, you can persist some other spell (like FoM or Death Ward) and still have two feat slots to play with as you see fit. You tell me why this is horrible.


I think you might be confusing specific numbers with a general principle. The point is that no matter how many spells the Archivist has in their book, they prepare a limited number each day, while the Beguiler can choose to use each spell slot for whatever spell is best in the moment. At a certain (pretty early, honestly) point, you get more from options during the day than changing your options between days. Though, of course, the Beguiler is perfectly capable of doing that too.

I'm not confusing anything with anything, thank you. I know the difference between prepared and fixed-list casting, and while the latter is neat and I kind of hate prepared casters (they are a pain!), you really need a Rainbow Beguiler to leverage its benefits, otherwise it will fall behind. Archivists are and fixed-listers are not tier 1 for a reason.


Do you have any evidence at all for your position that the mechanical interaction in question was not intended?

Direct evidence? No. But there are two things we should keep in mind: the only fixed-lister that appeared in print before CD is warmage (in MH). The two books don't share a single author.
Further, from the evidence at hand, we can infer that 3.5 consistently tried to nerf spontaneous casters in general (compared to wizard, sorcerer has a pitiable amount of spells known, no bonus feats, a lame skill list, no INT synergy, little to use their CHA for etc.); and that fixed-listers are no exception in this regard. Warmage is incredibly weak and beguiler/dread necromancer are plagued by their narrow scope: their thematic lists have various restrictions imposed on them and they don't enjoy a stellar splat support either. It would seem that the design intent was keeping them down, lest fixed-list casting make them "too good". Rainbow Beguiler doesn't fit quite well with that.


Why? What makes "this prestige class interacts with my spellcasting mechanic well" a loophole, but "this prestige class existing interacts with my spellcasting mechanic well" totally fine?

I don't follow. Archivist is not a prestige class which interacts with something and it doesn't need a prestige class to interact with either.


Then let's talk about the Warblade. Surely you can agree that the Warblade, being the highest-tier version of the swordsman archetype, represents a tradeoff where your character becomes "better at what they want to do" in exchange for losing other abilities. Does that mean the Warblade is mechanically fine and does not need to be altered?

My main gripe with ToB classes is that in many ways, they are gishes by another name. Other than that they are nice and easy to combine with other stuff due to how iniator level works. Tier 3 is not the worst of places.


Your argument, as I understand it, is that Ur-Priest is problematic because you can get nearly full casting progression on top of Ur-Priest progression with Mystic Theurge. My question is why you think that means Ur-Priest is the problem. I'm not asking why Wizard/Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge is better than Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, I'm asking why a game with Mystic Theurges but not Ur-Priests is better than the opposite.

No, my point is, the anomalous casting progression of Ur-Priest lends itself to shenanigans. An arcane caster/UP/MT is one such shenanigan, and it is quite clear that MT is not the issue, since MT without Ur-Priest is weak, while Ur-Priest without MT isn't – it merely becomes more situational.

(You sure you don't want to bring this issue over to the 3.5 subforum?)

[RandomPeasant]

You don't get full BAB from items, though.

"full BAB" is just +1 to hit every four levels and an extra attack that probably won't hit. You can get that from items just fine.


You tell me why this is horrible.

That's shifting the goalposts. I'm not saying it's horrible. I'm saying it's not better than what you can do as a Cleric already, which includes "be a Dweomerkeeper".


I'm not confusing anything with anything, thank you. I know the difference between prepared and fixed-list casting, and while the latter is neat and I kind of hate prepared casters (they are a pain!), you really need a Rainbow Beguiler to leverage its benefits, otherwise it will fall behind. Archivists are and fixed-listers are not tier 1 for a reason.

You don't need Rainbow Servant to leverage fixed list casting. You just need anything that adds spells to your spell list. Prestige Domains are another obvious example, and allow you to access one of the primary ways Archivists use to get new spells except that A) it's free and B) you cast those spells spontaneously. And, yes, Archivist is T1, but that's largely because prepared casters get faster casting progression, which is what we were arguing about in the first place.


Further, from the evidence at hand, we can infer that 3.5 consistently tried to nerf spontaneous casters in general (compared to wizard, sorcerer has a pitiable amount of spells known, no bonus feats, a lame skill list, no INT synergy, little to use their CHA for etc.)

I don't agree with that assessment. Spontaneous casters started off rough, but the designers clearly made efforts to rehabilitate them. There are Sorcerer-only spells. There are spells that are better for Sorcerers. The fixed-list casters themselves are an effort to make spontaneous spellcasters that are better. arcane spellsurge makes your bad metamagic an advantage, because it's much easier to use it for action economy when you can turn anything you want into a full round action. That fits entirely with Rainbow Servant working with the Warmage. And I think pragmatically "we should kick these people some more because designers tried to kick them" is a bad argument. That argument effectively reifies the tiers into a fundamental aspect of how we interpret rules, which makes neutral interpretation of the text far more difficult.


I don't follow. Archivist is not a prestige class which interacts with something and it doesn't need a prestige class to interact with either.

Archivist interacts with various PrCs (and, to be fair, base classes) which get partial casting progressions that cause spells to appear at lower levels than they would otherwise. It's true that it does things without those, but those things really aren't that impressive. The Druid list doesn't have a lot that's more exciting than what's on the Cleric list already, and you have to spend money to learn them. The Archivist is a Cleric that trades the things that make Clerics good in most games for the ability to dumpster dive infinitely. This is not actually a good trade, it's just one that sounds good to CharOp people who make tier lists.


My main gripe with ToB classes is that in many ways, they are gishes by another name. Other than that they are nice and easy to combine with other stuff due to how iniator level works. Tier 3 is not the worst of places.

So, to be clear, do you or do you not believe that the power level of the ToB classes requires no adjustment to be appropriate in comparison to spellcasters?


it is quite clear that MT is not the issue, since MT without Ur-Priest is weak, while Ur-Priest without MT isn't – it merely becomes more situational.

So if MT is bad without Ur-Priest, and Ur-Priest is potentially useful without MT, but they are problematic together, isn't that an argument that we should remove MT and keep Ur-Priest? That way we get a PrC that is sometimes useful, instead of one that is generally bad.

[Temotei]

I feel like the general balance discussion should be moved to a separate thread. The original discussion point about whether this prestige paladin's chassis combined with class features at every level as being too strong has been kind of sidelined.

[Metastachydium]

"full BAB" is just +1 to hit every four levels and an extra attack that probably won't hit. You can get that from items just fine.

Then why do people invest three feats into DMM? Anyhow, if you already have full BAB, the same items will put you at double the benefit and you lost nothing.


That's shifting the goalposts.

Copycat!


I'm not saying it's horrible. I'm saying it's not better than what you can do as a Cleric already, which includes "be a Dweomerkeeper".

I might not be familiar enough with Dweomerkeeper, but I don't think that's a gish thing. Other than that, yeah, tier 1 stuff is stupid strong. I don't think that should translate to anything goes, though.


You don't need Rainbow Servant to leverage fixed list casting. You just need anything that adds spells to your spell list. Prestige Domains are another obvious example, and allow you to access one of the primary ways Archivists use to get new spells except that A) it's free and B) you cast those spells spontaneously.

The Draconomicon thing? That requires divine casting and much like Arcane Disciple, doesn't allow use beyond 1/day/spell level.


And, yes, Archivist is T1, but that's largely because prepared casters get faster casting progression, which is what we were arguing about in the first place.

Again, spontaneous casters have issues beyond delayed progression (few spells or narrow focus), and you're yet to convince me otherwise.


I don't agree with that assessment. Spontaneous casters started off rough, but the designers clearly made efforts to rehabilitate them. There are Sorcerer-only spells. There are spells that are better for Sorcerers.

That's just a bone thrown to them. Sorcerer-only spells are so few you can pretty much count them on your fingers, and some of them aren't even good. Meanwhile, there are a few wizard-only spells as well (Mnemonic Enhancer, Lucubration, Arcane Conversion) and they are almost invariably strong.


The fixed-list casters themselves are an effort to make spontaneous spellcasters that are better.

Yup. So much so that they felt the concept's too strong, apparently, and they have to lock them into a school or two. Usually not even the good ones.


arcane spellsurge makes your bad metamagic an advantage, because it's much easier to use it for action economy when you can turn anything you want into a full round action.

It's nice, but it comes online late and there's a lot of strong stuff a wizard can do with it as well.


And I think pragmatically "we should kick these people some more because designers tried to kick them" is a bad argument. That argument effectively reifies the tiers into a fundamental aspect of how we interpret rules, which makes neutral interpretation of the text far more difficult.

"Cleric's are stronger than anything so let's make beguilers stronger than clerics and kick everyone so two classes can go all OP" isn't a stellar argument either.


Archivist interacts with various PrCs (and, to be fair, base classes) which get partial casting progressions that cause spells to appear at lower levels than they would otherwise. It's true that it does things without those, but those things really aren't that impressive. The Druid list doesn't have a lot that's more exciting than what's on the Cleric list already, and you have to spend money to learn them. The Archivist is a Cleric that trades the things that make Clerics good in most games for the ability to dumpster dive infinitely. This is not actually a good trade, it's just one that sounds good to CharOp people who make tier lists.

Well, archivist was designed with those "issues" at mind (there's five divine spell lists in core alone; I'm sure the developers didn't manage to miss most of those), it also has actual class features that synergize with its primary stat and, at any rate, if you think archivist doesn't deserve its tier ranking, you can take it to the "CharOp people".


So, to be clear, do you or do you not believe that the power level of the ToB classes requires no adjustment to be appropriate in comparison to spellcasters?

Most tier 1 and many tier 2 classes are a lot like fighters (except they work, of course): they are incredibly bland and their power (perceived or actual) comes from being able to cherry-pick an incoherent hodgepodge of stuff from a long list. I generally consider tier 3 and 4 classes better-designed.


So if MT is bad without Ur-Priest, and Ur-Priest is potentially useful without MT, but they are problematic together, isn't that an argument that we should remove MT and keep Ur-Priest? That way we get a PrC that is sometimes useful, instead of one that is generally bad.

Ur-Priest is potentially useful on its own and even pretty strong if used well. Ur-Priest with MT, in turn, is very strong. Other than that… Eh, why not?


I feel like the general balance discussion should be moved to a separate thread. The original discussion point about whether this prestige paladin's chassis combined with class features at every level as being too strong has been kind of sidelined.

Right? I have the strange impression that regarding the PrC at hand we kind of agree anyway, just for different reasons. I don't think it should have all its "like cleric, just more in every respect" features and Peasant seems to think that some of those could as well be removed because they don't really make a difference.