Are PrCs supposed to be this powerful?

[SilverLeaf167]

The question is in the title. This especially applies to many caster prestiges, for example Radient Servant of Pelor. While I have gotten the picture that PrCs are meant to sacrifice something, like caster level advancement, for some other special abilities, the Servant keeps advancing ALL the cleric's abilities, including spellcasting and turning undead.

So, is it kind of assumed that most people take PrCs as soon as they meet the requirements? Or are they just a major balance mistake?

EXPLANATION, if unclear: If all people are overpowered, none are; in relation to the others, that is.

[NelKor]

Clerics don't really have anything outside Spell Casting to advance.. plus Radiant doesn't really offer anything amazingly strong.

[Darklord Xavez]

Clerics don't really have anything outside Spell Casting to advance.. plus Radiant doesn't really offer anything amazingly strong.

Agreed. It's pretty much the same as taking more levels of cleric.
-Xavez

[Keld Denar]

Well, RSoP does only have a d6 HD, so you can't say that it gives up NOTHING. Plus, you have to take the Sun domain, which is generally less good than a couple other domains.

Lots of PrCs give something for relatively nothing though. Compare RSoP with Sacred Exorcist. Same BAB, better HD, full casting, full turning, AND a host of special abilities, one of which is a 24/7 active Consecrate aura. Everyone hates on RSoP, but SacEx is enterable 1 level later and is just as good.

Plus, look at the things that RSoP makes you better at. Healing, and to a lesser degree nuking with [Light] spells. Yea, its better than NOTHING, but not really.

The real problem is the failure of most base classes to have interesting features to make them worth staying in.

[Duke of URL]

In theory, a PrC is supposed to be a trade-off of one set of abilities for another. In practice, this concept is laughable in the 3.5 system.

(Of course, I could start a shameless plug here for a variant system derived from 3.5 that is significantly better in this regard, but I'll let my signature speak for itself.)

[ericgrau]

<Digs out DMG>: "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign... The best prestige clases for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself."

@ thread title: yes
Has it gotten way out of hand?: Yes
Do splat-books worsen it with power creep?: Yes, but power creep is typical of everything.

Being strictly better than not getting a prestige class has made every decent build include them, which is the exact opposite of their original intent.

[Keld Denar]

Being strictly better than not getting a prestige class has made every decent build include them, which is the exact opposite of their original intent.

There are plenty of decent builds that don't use any PrCs. Swift Hunter and Daring Outlaw are both considered very good damage builds, and neither of them use ANY PrCs. Straight Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Dragonfire Adept, Factotum, Totemist, Druid, and a few other base classes are often as strong or stronger than many PrC alternatives.

Also, not all power is creepy. Complete Arcane contains some crap like Iot7V, Sublime Chord, Fatespinner, and the lauded Mindbender dip, which are WAY stronger than most of the PrCs in CChampion, CMage, or CScoundrel, all of which came later.

Just sayin...your generalizations are kinda...not right.

[Telonius]

RSoP is a particularly egregious example of Prestige Class not being what it's supposed to be. It's particularly awful because its prerequisites are things most Clerics would probably think about taking anyway. If you're thinking of playing a Cleric of Pelor, I'd be hard-pressed to figure out a single case where you'd rather not take it. A PrC should never be that good. If it is, you haven't made a PrC, you've made a 10-level set of Alternate Class Features.

Sacred Exorcist is along the same lines. I think it doesn't get quite as much bile directed at it because it has a poor Fort save. The cost is a little more substantial than a couple less HPs. Still, it's giving you a lot of goodies for a very low cost.

[ericgrau]

@ Keld: I'd have a lot less against all those straight classes than PrCs that are strictly better. Those PrCs irk me. The classes you listed don't. Except maybe ToB for personal reasons, but that's an entirely different topic and I can understand why others enjoy ToB.

It's not about "decent", it's about "strictly better". I have nothing against decent builds in general. The game should be full of them. But when PrCs are usually better, the DM must make monsters stronger to provide a real challenge and the PC who only made a "decent build" w/o including PrCs gets gimped. Forcing players to play something or sit around ineffective is out of hand. As for civil groups who keep things in check in spite of this, kudos to them and I am glad those groups are so common.

[Diarmuid]

So I think a lot of this is also perception based on the sheer amount of people that participate in a forum like these here and the anonymity involved with the internet.

You dont have to look your DM in the eye when you're asking for the half-dragon half-fiendish dire lichborn spellstitched blah blah blah because you know he would laugh you off the table.

I am just as guilty as others are on here. I've made PbP chars I would never have brought to a RL gaming table. I think the amount of games happening and directly related the amount of game turnover also contribute as when you're applying for 10 games in a week you need to look harder to try and find interesting character concepts.

[Keld Denar]

Ok, how about this? Rogue4/Swashbuckler16 with Daring Outlaw IS STRICTLY BETTER THAN Swashbuckler20. The only thing I can marginally think of is that the Daring Outlaw would have to wait until level 9 to take the 2nd TWFing feat, while the Swash20 could take it at 6, due to his BAB. This evens out at 12 though, since both will have BAB +11 or more at 12. The Daring Outlaw, however, TWFs better due to his massive boatload of bonus damage attached, so that slight delay in progression is more than made up by the bonus damage.

I wouldn't say its strictly better than Rogue20, because of the skill points and Rogue special abilities involved, but it IS strictly better than Swashbuckler20.

Does that make you mad too?

[nightwyrm]

10% of PrCs are better than the base class(es) you're entering from or are crucial for certain builds.
~10-20% makes you no better or worse than what you're coming from.
The rest are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

[ericgrau]

Marginally better doesn't count. I thought I was quite clear about being so much better that the DM must use monsters that the other player can't do much against. Or else weaker monsters that the stronger guy must crush.

OTOH the last time I remember that happening WAS with a warblade, but I think the DM's monster selection and the loot she gave the warblade was to blame for that. As I said most groups avoid issues by being fairly civil... which often includes limits on how many PrCs they dip into.

[JoshuaZ]

Another offender in a similar fashion right in core is the Loremaster. Wizards qualify almost automatically, they get full spell progression. The only major thing they might lose is a single bonus feat but they get an even more flexible version of that as a loremaster option.

[ericgrau]

Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

[Keld Denar]

What does RSoP get that is more than marginally better than what a vanillia cleric20 gets? Their strongest class feature is the bonus domain, which is mostly a replacement for having to burn a domain to get into the class in the first place. So, they can greater turn slightly more often than a non-RSoP? Great vs about 6% of the printed bad guys in the game. They get free metamagic on up to 7 spells per day? Wooo... Any [Light] spell they cast is heightened by one level and its area doubled? Thats great for the what, 5 [Light] descripter spells in Core, and 3-4 more outside of Core? Oh, and you get Martial Weapon Proficiency (argueably a typo, still pretty meh otherwise), but you lose a HP per level.

Am I missing anything? Oh yea, a +2 Will save to any allies willing to stand within Cleave range of you. Sounds GREAT!

Yea, there are situations where some of these abilities ARE decent, but on average, they are pretty marginal. You are getting something for nothing, but its like going to the grocery store and trying to fill up on the free samples.

[JoshuaZ]

Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

Well both are much easier for a wizard to qualify for than a sorcerer. But archmage 1) requires a feat that many aren't going to take (Skill Focus (Spellcraft) ) 2) burns spell slots for its abilities.

I agree that Loremaster isn't as much of a problem as Radiant Servant, but it seems to be in the same category and is worse in that regard than Archmage.

[Tyndmyr]

10% of PrCs are better than the base class(es) you're entering from or are crucial for certain builds.
~10-20% makes you no better or worse than what you're coming from.
The rest are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

This is about right. The vast majority of PrCs are mostly useless. A good chunk of the remainder are only usable as dips. Of whats left, most are reasonably balanced. A few are broken.

I believe this is more a result of a lack of balance on the part of WoTC than any actual strategy.

[Zaydos]

Actually by taking 10 levels of loremaster they lose 2 bonus feats, their familiar progression (if it's not already traded away), and have to spend another feat on Skill Focus (any knowledge).

In exchange they get Lore (which a wizard can already duplicate with a wide array of knowledge skills), some divination spell-like abilities (which are meh), a single bonus feat (so they're down 2 feats), and a few miscellaneous bonuses (either +1 to a few saves or extra 1st and 2nd level spells). Oh and 20 extra skill points.

Those 2 feats can hurt (1 feat is what makes humans so good).

[herrhauptmann]

Ya but loremaster doesn't give you much, so it's not so bad, and not everyone loads up on item creation / metamagic. And for sorcerers it's a major trade off that probably isn't worth it. I'd say archmage is a lot worse.

Sorta feel that people can go mini-archmage to an extent with reserve feats now, so the PrC is less effective than it was.

To silverleaf, I think that the Swiftblade is a great example of what a PrC should be. It's a variant of a regular class, focuses on something that class can do, to the point that the PrC does it very well, but also gives up something (6/10 casting)so that a straight wiz/sorc/whatever is still equally powerful.

[Frosty]

You know, the Malconvoker is a PrC done RIGHT in my opinion. Loses a caste rlevel up front, and has quite a few interesting and GOOD abilities to make up for it, letting you become great at the area of specialization (summoning, in this case).

IMO, any casting PrC needs to lose a caster level at or before the level where they get the *really good* class features.

[ericgrau]

There are plenty of prcs that aren't so bad, but plenty of offenders too.

[ericgrau]

Well both are much easier for a wizard to qualify for than a sorcerer. But archmage 1) requires a feat that many aren't going to take (Skill Focus (Spellcraft) ) 2) burns spell slots for its abilities.

1 feat for access to multiple very good abilities is well worth it, especially at high levels when you can afford it. The spell slots lost are trivial, as they are unlikely to be of the highest spell level you can cast. Yeah, there are worse PrCs but my point was even things like mastery of shaping/elements are game changing and have very little cost. Ya, power creep in splatbooks override that a little but they also provide more offensive PrCs. In the end the only reason for a core player to not take archmage is to be civil or DM limitations b/c it will put him so much ahead of his allies, and this is much more true for splatbook prcs. Archmage is relatively tame.

[Tyndmyr]

1 feat for access to multiple very good abilities is well worth it, especially at high levels when you can afford it. The spell slots lost are trivial, as they are unlikely to be of the highest spell level you can cast.

Er, they vary from 5th to 9th, depending on ability. When you go into the class, your highest spell level is 7th. That does not match my definition of "trivial".

You also need spell focus in two schools of magic. This is a pita, as this is not generally considered good optimization. You can somewhat avoid this by ducking into master specialist early, but doing that sacrifices a metamagic feat. You can shuffle the cost around, but it remains a cost.

Yeah, there are worse PrCs but my point was even things like mastery of shaping/elements are game changing and have very little cost.

You can replicate this with metamagic feats. The elemental ones are even +0, so...yeah. These abilities are handy, but the cost is in line with other means of acheiving them.

Ya, power creep in splatbooks override that a little but they also provide more offensive PrCs. In the end the only reason for a core player to not take archmage is to be civil or DM limitations b/c it will put him so much ahead of his allies, and this is much more true for splatbook prcs. Archmage is relatively tame.

You must be joking. I routinely pass on archmage, because I enjoy having spell slots. It's the same reason I love specializing. Spell slots are what MAKES a wizard awesome. It's not a bad prc, but I've almost never been in a position where the tradeoff has been worthwhile for me. The only thing that makes me question this is the SLA possibility, with very specific spells.

[Project_Mayhem]

Doesn't RSoP have some strict roleplaying requirements? I remember hearing that.

[Keld Denar]

Honestly, I think the CL boost is the strongest feature of Archmage. 5th level is a rather ****ty level of spells (I think a lot of 4th level spells are STRONGER than some of the 5ths listed), and the +1 CL gives you lots of boosts. My level 14 Archmage has a CL of 14 +2 from Archmage + 1 from Craft Magic Tatoo + 1 from Orange IWIN Stone = 18. At 15, he'll be able to hit CL20 GMWs. His spells are already tough to dispel. His EBT Grapple check is rediculous. He overcomes nearly all SR with Arcane Mastery + advanced CL. Unlike Clerics, Wizards don't have NEARLY as many free ways to increase their CL. Archmage is one of them.

Again, I might be missing something here, but I've found that to be certainly one of the more useful High Arcana's in practical use.

[liquid150]

Red Wizards with time on their hands (or a flowing time demiplane)...that's a good way to boost arcane CL. It's no Greater Consumptive Field, but it's good enough. Toss in a bunch of cheddar and you've got something like over 100 9th level spells, all at CL 40.

Another good way is Earth Spell.

RSoP isn't exactly super powerful. It's nice if you really like being a healbot, but otherwise pretty "meh."

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Everyone knows the top tier PrC's and this isn't one of them. In fact, I hate this PrC with a passion. It really screwed me over in a campaign

If you have a problem with it say no. The DM is specifically encouraged to in the rules.

[Vangor]

the Servant keeps advancing ALL the cleric's abilities, including spellcasting and turning undead.

A cleric does not tend to have anything else. Dropping turning is often done with no regard, and advancing turning, plus some nice bonuses to healing, while just maintaining spellcasting progression is good but nothing spectacular beyond the basic cleric. Frankly, extra turning and the sun domain when you do not care about turning are throwaways, and healing is rarely the big issue. The basic cleric should have a couple more features, frankly.

If all people are overpowered, none are; in relation to the others, that is.

Correct. Power is relative. I spent a while trying to explain this to people I was DMing in discussions about optimizing builds. Whatever you make, unless the DM is absolutely rigid, will be challenged. Perhaps I will play the encounters more intelligently, the true foes of the campaign will focus on the biggest threats they've heard about, I'll advance creatures or add them, or you attract the attention of other foes, too.

I do not happen to find a class which focuses primarily on health point healing and basic turning to be terribly overpowered. The cleric is powerful, and I would probably prefer to choose other domains and use a different feat or obviously exploit the feat for other purposes which don't involve me wasting away with the sun domain and worshiping Pelor.

[liquid150]

Everyone knows the top tier PrC's and this isn't one of them. In fact, I hate this PrC with a passion. It really screwed me over in a campaign

If you have a problem with it say no. The DM is specifically encouraged to in the rules.

That sounds like an entertaining story, but I'm sure you don't want to re-live it.