[3.5] Casting PrCs and Full Casting Progression

[The Professor]

There something I want to discuss, and that's the poor PrCs that don't get full casting progression, especially the ones that only get half. This could apply to Psionics, too I guess, but I'm less familiar with their PrCs.

I'd like to bring up the Mindbender. It's front-loaded, but I like the fluff and the capstone (although you could just keep renewing a dominate anyway), and was wondering if it'd be reasonable to give it full progression? Or would we have to do something like remove the Telepathy at first level? As it stands now, there's almost no reason to take it beyond the first level.

I'm AFB right now, but there's a PrC in the Expanded Psionics book called... the Uncarnate? Incarnate? Anyhow, it has half progression and I think the fluff of it is to spend all of your resources on lower-level powers? Wouldn't it be reasonable to give it something like the Heirophant, and increase your manifester level on the levels you don't get a ML increase but not for the purposes of Powers Known?

Anyhow, that's all I've got right now. Any others?

[theMycon]

I am posting primarily to tell you that your signature is awesome.

"Run, run, or you'll be well done!" Is one of my favorite video-game quotes of all time. It's one of the few I use in social conversation that's not from a Working Designs game. I love it.

I am unfamiliar with Incarnate, though I've heard it mentioned as "one of the few worthwhile PrC's that loses more than one manifester/caster level." This makes me think giving it more powers would be unbalanced.

Mindbender, however, I have had the exact same thoughts as you, multiple times. Giving it something like 80% progression seems reasonable. The "most reasonable" thing I could think of would be "give full progression, but remove a few powers upon getting the capstone", but that would be... weird. And possibly not worth the capstone. You would, ideally, want some way to make it actually a hard choice to make.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The problem is that full casting is just so good. Maing something powerful enough to be worth losing even one CL for is hard, but if they don't lose 1 CL it's essentially a freebie. Certain things are too powerful to be given without loss off a CL, but losing even one means that people will avoid the class.

[The Professor]

Thanks for the compliment, theMycon. Kefka had all the depth of Mt. Everest, but had memorable lines.

The problem is that full casting is just so good. Maing something powerful enough to be worth losing even one CL for is hard, but if they don't lose 1 CL it's essentially a freebie. Certain things are too powerful to be given without loss off a CL, but losing even one means that people will avoid the class.

And that's precisely why I've come to the boards. I'm pretty awful when it comes to balance, but I know sub-par when I see it. The most important thing to me is playability. As it stands now, things like the Mindbender aren't playable. Sure, you take that one-level dip for 100 ft. Telepathy, but the rest of the class is worthless because losing caster levels is so dang hard to compensate for.

I'm just curious what it might actually take to make them playable.

[mcl01]

You could houserule full CL progression if not full spellcasting progression for caster PrCs. They may not gain new spells or spell levels every level, but they'll still increase their casting prowess.

[DragoonWraith]

The only real way to do it, unfortunately, is to overhaul the spell system to make a single CL loss less significant. 1 CL is worth too much to lose; -0 CL means losing nothing.

That's... a lot harder.

One thing I thought of was to make 9th level spells on the Sorc/Wiz list the capstone ability of the Sorcerer and Wizard classes, not part of their normal spellcasting. Further, the Wizard only gets one 9th level spell per day, not even bonus spells, while the Sorcerer can get bonus 9th level spells but only gets one known. Thus, you can never reach 9th level spellcasting if you PrC (so losing a CL is less serious when comparing two PrCs), and you're missing out on less if you do it since 9th level spell casting is so limited (and the power of the spells, I think, is enough to make it a reasonable capstone), so you might see some people willing to take a loss of a CL or two. After all, if the highest level of spell a PrC'd character will ever reach is 8th, and they'll get that at CL 16 (at the worst), you can lose a few CLs without being crippled.

Also consider giving CL advancement (but not spell progression), a la Ultimate Magus, to more classes that get no advancement. And possibly down-grading some of the better full-casting PrCs (Iot7V and Incantatrix, obviously, for a start) to getting some of these "you'll get CL, but not better spells".

Or make a rule where all characters always get 0.5 CL per level, unless the class specifically gives them more. A Fighter 18/Wizard 2 would have a CL of 11, for instance, even though they'd only have 4 cantrips and a pair of 1st level spells.

[KillianHawkeye]

You could houserule full CL progression if not full spellcasting progression. They may not gain new spells or spell levels every level, but they'll still increase their casting prowess.

Aburant Champion has something like this. It sets your CL equal to your Base Attack Bonus, which makes sense being it's a gish class. (Although Abjurant Champion is a full spellcasting class already, so this feature is primarily to make up for levels wasted on getting the prereqs I guess.)

[AstralFire]

IMO people make too big a deal out of spellcasting level loss in most cases. As long as you're getting at least half progression, you'll end up with 7th or 8th level spells, and those are pretty nice. If you get 9th level spells, that almost always dominates how your character feels. The majority of prestige classes that get you to 9th level spells do not feel very different in play from the base class as it is, because you're usually more concerned with your Time Stops and Astral Shifts than you are your Song of Cosmic Fire.

Just... unless you're playing with your whole party planning on being optimal 9th level casters, I don't quite understand why it is so pressing that some of the best classes around do not stomach taking a bit of a hit.

[chaos_redefined]

The other problem with losing caster levels, besides the fact that you might not get 9th level casting, is that you get all your other casting later. As an example, if you lose 5 caster levels to mindbender, not only do you not get 9th level spells, you get 8th level spells at level 20, you get 7th level spells at level 18, and you get 6th level spells at 16th. At 15th level, you have 5th level spells. (I don't have the progression here, so I can't go lower than that.)

For purposes of comparison, at 15th level, the wizard 5/mindbender 10 gets 5th level spells, while the wizard 15 gets 8th level spells. And the mindbender gets some SLAs which replicate, at most, 5th level spells. Personally, I'd prefer the 8th level spells myself.

People only look at the end result, but I look at it and go "Wait, I'm losing early access to stuff for what?"

As another example, malconvoker loses a caster level at 1st level (character level 6 if taken at earliest oppurtunity) In return, however, he gets double duration on his summons, and summons 2 creatures (which is the average on a d3, so it's all good). (As long as he is sticking to evil creatures off the summon monster list). That's effectively gaining two levels of casting, as long as he sticks to that subset.

In that case, as long as I stick to my main schtick, I've effectively gained a level (good), but I've lost a level when I go for utility and whatnot (bad). But, it is something which can be worth the cost.

Imagine you're playing a malconvoker in a party containing a wizard. Half the time, that lost level will meanyou don't get as many spells of your highest level as the pure wizard of the same level. The other half, it means you're casting spells one level lower than the pure wizard. But your summon spells will essentially reverse that. Half the time, your summon spells act as if they are one level higher than the pure wizard's spells, while the other half, your summon spells act as if they are equal (not including other bonuses, such as infernal fury, augment summons, beckon the frozen, etc...)

[AstralFire]

The mindbender (and several of the other deeper loss PrCs) definitely needs some repolish as written, I'm just saying that a caster progression level (or even five) lost by itself is hardly game ending, at least as long as your goal in optimization is more focused around holding your own rather than going full-stop.

[The Professor]

Hm... All very interesting. While I enjoy seeing theoretical optimization, this isn't entirely my aim, playability is what I'm looking at. While I have no doubt that a few lost caster levels would have you still being a capable caster, considering all the things every level of spells has to offer, the biggest problem is that your enemies will be packing better spells. And more of them.

The problem lies in the spell system. There's no way around that, I fear, without homebrewing my own, and at that point, I might as well pick up a different game for all the trouble it would cause.

Really, the only viable option I think open is to retool all of the offending classes. Change their abilities around/weaken them to warrant full casting.

[Dilb]

In place of reduced casting, you could always add either horrible entry requirements, essentially making them waste feats and skill points.

Before you can bend minds to your will, you must first learn to bend nature
Requirements: skill focus (profession (basket weaving)); 8 ranks in profession (basket weaving)

If skills as awesome as basket weaving still seem too good, you could always make forgery the requirement.

Or do like the archmage, and have abilities that rely on sacrificing spell slots, or PP as appropriate. You could add some pretty powerful abilities if you make them sacrifice half their spells per day, even if they still get the highest level spells.

[Irreverent Fool]

I think Dilb's got the right idea... about spell slots I mean, not about weaving (WHICH IS ACTUALLY A PREREQUISITE FOR WARWEAVER) Losing spell slots isn't nearly as bad as losing progression. That having been said, I played a mindbender once and had a lot of fun. Granted, the only other 'caster' in the party was a paladin, so perhaps I didn't have a good basis for comparison.

Remember too, that you don't need to be a full caster to qualify for mindbender.

Eternal Charm is a great way to mess with the DM.

obnoxious
sig

[quick_comment]

You could give them ToB like progression, where non casting levels provide 1/2 caster levels.

The main problem with losing CL is not that you lose a dice of damage from your spells, but that you lose access to the much more powerful higher level spells.

[The Professor]

Wow. Dilb, that's an amazing idea I had never thought of before. Start docking spell slots a la Archmage is brilliant! You still get your spells, but you're only useful so many times per day. I might actually have to work with that, it may actually be a good precedent for giving most other casting PrCs full progression.

Doesn't quite work for psionics, though, sadly.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

One thought I had was to have PrCs increase spells/day and spells known as normal, but only increase CL at half rate. So, say, a Wizard 5/Master Specialist 10/Archmage 2 would cast 9th level spells and such, but only have a CL of 11. Could penalize PrCing, but without rendering them useless. You'd have to rebalance some PrCs a bit, however, and some should probably progress CL at full, but at least it would give you something else for PrCs to lose from the base class.

[satorian]

The big problem with the loss of spell progression is the CR system, and with it the SR/save progression problem. With only low level spells and a low caster level, your spellcasting is nigh useless, especially at higher levels. You'll never overcome CR or saves without, for example, an epic headband of charisma, the practiced spellcaster feat (which shouldn't be a necessary feat to be useful). Nerfing caster level while giving higher spells, or nerfing the spell list severely while leaving CL does not avoid this problem. A sorceror whose spells are nearly always ignored by his enemy is a commoner.

[Irreverent Fool]

In my gaming group, we generally just grant any class that has spells (even PrCs) a caster level equal to the class level. It's less confusing to the people who don't pore over the rules like I do and makes classes without full progression suck less.

obnoxious
sig

[Pramxnim]

The other problem with losing caster levels, besides the fact that you might not get 9th level casting, is that you get all your other casting later. As an example, if you lose 5 caster levels to mindbender, not only do you not get 9th level spells, you get 8th level spells at level 20, you get 7th level spells at level 18, and you get 6th level spells at 16th. At 15th level, you have 5th level spells. (I don't have the progression here, so I can't go lower than that.)

For purposes of comparison, at 15th level, the wizard 5/mindbender 10 gets 5th level spells, while the wizard 15 gets 8th level spells. And the mindbender gets some SLAs which replicate, at most, 5th level spells. Personally, I'd prefer the 8th level spells myself.

People only look at the end result, but I look at it and go "Wait, I'm losing early access to stuff for what?"

As another example, malconvoker loses a caster level at 1st level (character level 6 if taken at earliest oppurtunity) In return, however, he gets double duration on his summons, and summons 2 creatures (which is the average on a d3, so it's all good). (As long as he is sticking to evil creatures off the summon monster list). That's effectively gaining two levels of casting, as long as he sticks to that subset.

In that case, as long as I stick to my main schtick, I've effectively gained a level (good), but I've lost a level when I go for utility and whatnot (bad). But, it is something which can be worth the cost.

Imagine you're playing a malconvoker in a party containing a wizard. Half the time, that lost level will meanyou don't get as many spells of your highest level as the pure wizard of the same level. The other half, it means you're casting spells one level lower than the pure wizard. But your summon spells will essentially reverse that. Half the time, your summon spells act as if they are one level higher than the pure wizard's spells, while the other half, your summon spells act as if they are equal (not including other bonuses, such as infernal fury, augment summons, beckon the frozen, etc...)

I believe one way to augment classes that give reduced spellcasting is to move the penalties to a later stage. It's not that clear as I've stated it, but let me demonstrate with an example.

Let's take the same Wizard 5/Mindbender 10 in Chaos' example. He'll still have 5th level spells by 15th level, but he'll have gained access them by 9th level. It's like virtually shunting all the spellcasting to the first 5 levels, which doesn't punish the people who would stick to the PrC by allowing them to still get their spells on time.

Of course, this requires communication between the players and DM. If the player only wants to dip into Mindbender for 2 levels to get the abilities, he'll still only get 1 level of spellcasting progression, because the class still only grants half-casting. This will encourage more planning on the players' part, as they will figure out exactly how many levels they wish to take in a PrC that doesn't grant full spellcasting before jumping out.

How does that sound?

[AstralFire]

If your fix revolves around spellcasting progression, I would move Mindbender up to 7/10 and call it a day. Frontloading never works out well.

[Pramxnim]

It's not exactly frontloading per se. It's a fix to reward dedicated players who want to stick to the PrC. It's an alternative to giving those classes more spellcasting progression, as that way lies... well... DM-Player arguments, and those aren't pretty.

[Indon]

You could shift the majority of the class features towards non-casting levels - this removes the design problem of, "Do I give them spellcasting or so-and-so class feature" and hands it to the players in the form of, "Do I take spellcasting or these class features?"

[Gorbash]

Do I take spellcasting or these class features

Problem is that you get one (or at best, two) class features, yet a spellcasting level gives you a really big number of spells at your disposal, so it's kinda obvious that most people would chose spellcasting. If they're not making gish characters to begin with, that is.

[AstralFire]

It's not exactly frontloading per se. It's a fix to reward dedicated players who want to stick to the PrC. It's an alternative to giving those classes more spellcasting progression, as that way lies... well... DM-Player arguments, and those aren't pretty.

No, it's still frontloading. All that does instead is give them standard progression for five levels, then sucker punch them as they basically do not improve at all for the next five. I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't think it works too well.

Class design for spellcasting prestige classes needs to be built around "at most levels that I take this class, I feel both more prestigious and more powerful than when I started, able to compete with most classes in this role without lots of sourcebook searching", rather than "when I finish this class, I feel as or more powerful than I would be if I stuck with the base class." At the moment, I feel the issue more lies in the fact that most of the discussed classes either fail both requirements (most of the weak ones who lose lots of caster levels) or focus only on meeting the latter (which kills some of the 'prestige' for me.)

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Doesn't quite work for psionics, though, sadly.

Actually, there is (or was at some point) an Arch-Psion PrC on the WotC site; it sacrificed power points instead of spell slots, and it seemed to work out well. Psionicists in general aren't as powerful as arcanists anyway, so if it's less of a hit for psionicists, that's fine.