PrC Evaluation Thread

[Mike Miller]

After receiving some feedback regarding judging prestige classes here, I decided to go ahead and evaluate prestige classes based on what I believe are the most useful criteria for a random player looking at random prestige classes. As for which prestige classes to pick first, I decided to go in chronological order of publishing beginning with the 3.5 DMG. The questions I am using to evaluate prestige classes are as follows:

1:What are the benefits of the prestige class and how useful are they?
2:Is the character better off having obtained the prestige class levels as compared to likely base classes used for entry? In other words, is it worth the opportunity costs?
3:What impact do the prerequisites have on taking this prestige class?

I will explain a little about why I've chosen these and also how the evaluation will assign points. For the first question, I will focus on the benefits of the prestige class (hereafter PrC, because I'm getting tired of typing it out already). The benefits cover every aspect of the PrC, so full BAB is best for martials, full CL is best for casters, abilities that increase versatility are better than penalties masquerading as boosts, etc. I feel that a breakdown of the class should come first, followed by a look at what could have been. It will be useful to note whether it is worth remaining in the class for its entirety or just for dips. Dead levels will also be considered. This evaluation will be worth 14 points of the total. As for specific breakdowns, I expect the “Special” column to carry a bit more weight than any other single criterion. However, there is such a diverse spread of PrCs out there, I don't have a breakdown that would cover all situations within this part of the judgment.

As to the second question, I will look at other classes in relation to the PrC. Obviously there are too many comparisons to be made in classes, spells, abilities, etc. so I will focus on likely base classes for entry. I don't want to pick a number of likely base classes to use, as it will probably vary from PrC to PrC. However, an important factor is whether or not the PrC provides new features for the character. A PrC that simply adds numbers to already existing abilities is receiving far less than a PrC that adds new, versatile abilities, which expand the character's competence. This evaluation will be worth 4 points. The harder it is to justify taking a PrC over a base class, the fewer points will be received in this category.

The “easiest” part of the evaluation comes with the third question. How are the prerequisites affecting your consideration of the PrC? Although it may be subjective, I will be using a minor/medium/major breakdown for the remaining 2 points. A PrC that has “minor” prerequisites receives the full 2 points. “Medium” receives 1 point and “major” receives 0 points. Some base classes lend themselves naturally to some PrCs by providing all or most of the prerequisites. Other PrCs have lengthy, strict prerequisites that you almost have to go out of your way to achieve. I think there will be a clear balance most of the time. It is also worth noting that I will ignore all alignment and racial prerequisites, as they are more fluff than they are mechanical and can be easily negotiated with a DM. This evaluation will be worth 2 points.

To summarize:
1:Are the benefits of the PrC useful? 14 points max
2:Is the PrC worth the opportunity costs? 4 points max
3:How strict are the prerequisites? 2 points max

Total Max Score: 20 points

Spoiler: Inspiration from

Show

Both LOTRfan and Inevitability

[Mike Miller]

Spoiler: Planned List of Source Books in Order

Show

2003/06 Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG)
2003/09 Miniatures Handbook (MH)
2003/10 Book of Exalted Deeds (BE)
2003/11 Draconomicon (Dr)
2003/12 Complete Warrior (CW)
2004/04 Expanded Psionics Handbook (XPH)
2004/05 Complete Divine (CD)
2004/07 Planar Handbook (PlH)
2004/08 Races of Stone (RS)
2004/09 Frostburn (Fr)
2004/10 Libris Mortis (LM)
2004/11 Complete Arcane (CAr)
2004/12 Races of Destiny (RD)
2005/01 Complete Adventurer (CAd)
2005/02 Races of the Wild (RW)
2005/03 Sandstorm (Sa)
2005/04 Lords of Madness (LoM)
2005/05 Heroes of Battle (HB)
2005/07 Weapons of Legacy (WL)
2005/08 Stormwrack (Sto)
2005/09 Magic of Incarnum (MoI)
2005/10 Heroes of Horror (HH)
2006/01 Races of the Dragon (RDr)
2006/03 Tome of Magic (TM)
2006/04 Complete Psionic (CP)
2006/05 Player's Handbook II (PH2)
2006/06 Fiendish Codex I (FC1)
2006/08 Tome of Battle (ToB)
2006/09 Dragon Magic (DM)
2006/10 Complete Mage (CM)
2006/11 Cityscape (Ci)
2006/12 Fiendish Codex II (FC2)
2007/01 Complete Scoundrel (CS)
2007/02 Dungeonscape (Du)
2007/05 Complete Champion (CC)
2007/05 Drow of the Underdark (DrU)
(the list is from WotC somewhere)

Feel free to vote on any of these and not just the current one.
Averaged Ratings:

Spoiler: DMG

Show

Arcane Archer: 7.33 / 20 (3 votes)

Arcane Trickster: 11 / 20 (3 votes)

Archmage: 10.33 / 20 (3 votes)

Assassin: 14.67 / 20 (3 votes)

Blackguard: 8.67 / 20 (3 votes)

Dragon Disciple: 4.5 / 20 (2 votes)

Dwarven Defender: 7.25 / 20 (2 votes)

Duelist: 7 / 20 (1 vote)

Eldritch Knight: 10 / 20 (1 vote)

Hierophant: 9.67 / 20 (3 votes)

Horizon Walker: 14.5 / 20 (3 votes)

Loremaster: 12.5 / 20 (2 votes)

Mystic Theurge: 9 / 20 (3 votes)

Shadowdancer: 11.5 / 20 (2 votes)

Thaumaturgist: 18 / 20 (3 votes)

Spoiler: Miniature's Handbook

Show

Bonded Summoner: 6.5 / 20 (2 votes)

Dragon Samurai: 3.33 / 20 (3 votes)

Havoc Mage: 8.5 / 20 (2 votes)

Skullclan Hunter: 12 / 20 (2 votes)

Tactical Soldier: 12 / 20 (2 votes)

War Hulk: 13 / 20 (2 votes)

Warchief: 3 / 20 (2 votes) *NPC*

Spoiler: Book of Exalted Deeds

Show

Anointed Knight: 9 / 20 (3 votes)

Apostle of Peace: 4.33 / 20 (3 votes)

Beloved of Valarian: 13 / 20 (3 votes)

Celestial Mystic: 14.33 (3 votes)

Champion of Gwynharwyf: 17.25 (4 votes)

Defender of Sealtiel: 5 / 20 (3 votes)

Emissary of Barachiel: 4 / 20 (1 vote)

Exalted Arcanist: 14.5 / 20 (3 votes)

Fist of Raziel: 13.33 (3 votes)

Initiate of Pistis Sophia: 6 / 20 (2 votes)

Lion of Talisid: 16 / 20 (2 votes)

Prophet of Erathaol: 2.33 / 20 (3 votes)

Risen Martyr: 8 / 20 (1 vote) *NPC*

Sentinel of Bharrai: 13 / 20 (1 vote)

Skylord: 9 / 20 (1 vote)

Slayer of Domiel: 11 / 20 (1 vote)

Stalker of Kharash: 8 / 20 (2 votes)

Swanmay:

[Mike Miller]

Arcane Archer

Spoiler

Show

1)
The arcane archer is described as a warrior that uses magic to boost its combat capabilities. With that mindset, the lack of casting progression isn't so bad. This PrC is first and foremost about archery and not spells. With full BAB, good fort and reflex, d8 HD, and 4 skills per level, the PrC is off to a decent start.

The first ability is Enhance arrow, which is an unfortunate case of “+ numbers.” Of course, having a boost to hit and damage is good, but this boost doesn't stack with potential enhancement bonuses from bows or arrows. (-2 points for being a combination of virtual dead levels and mediocre non-stacking bonuses)

Imbue arrow is the signature ability of the class. It lets you place area spells on your arrows upon attacking as a standard action. It was probably meant for burst or spread effects, but thanks to its wording you can create rather massive cones. This is definitely a useful ability and may be the reason you take this class. Arcane archer is definitely worth a two level dip just for this ability, if you have enough spellcasting.

The next unique ability is Seeker Arrow. While negating cover and concealment are nice, the 1/day limitation is rather absurd. This PrC suffers from the fact that it was created so early in 3.5's lifespan. Although negating cover can be done in other ways, firing the arrow around corners is a neat ability. However, its limitation strongly detracts from its usefulness. (-2 points for being barely useful and limited to 1/day)

Phase arrow also suffers from the 1/day limitation. This one is a lot more useful than Seeker arrow because it negates armor in addition to cover and concealment as it phases through all nonmagical barriers or walls. I would argue that it negates magical armor; however, as it is written, one could argue that magical armor is a magical barrier and thus stops the arrow. So this one is probably really good once a day, but considering the level that you obtain it, you would be better off using other attacks most of the time. (-1 point for being potentially useless and still limited to 1/day)

Hail of Arrows is yet another 1/day ability. It allows you to attack up to your AA level in targets within range. It doesn't come out and call it a full attack, but it is probably supposed to be a full attack as it replaces your regular attacks. Receiving this ability at level 8 means you can initially attack 8 enemies at once. It is a pretty cool one-off attack, but that daily limit really hampers its usage. If it were 3/day or half your class level per day or something, you could be a blockbuster action hero, firing umpteen arrows before your opponents even reach you.

The underwhelming capstone is the Arrow of Death. It is just a slaying arrow. That's it. You can only possess one at a time. This is miserable. Sure the standard slaying arrow costs 2,282 GP and the greater version costs 4,057 GP, but you are roughly level 17 when this comes into play. A DC 20 Fort save is laughable at the levels where you might use this arrow. (-3 for being a trap capstone, worse than a magical item, and arriving when it is wholly unreliable)

Overall, I would say the free enhancement bonuses are nice. Imbue arrow is fun. The rest is mostly forgettable, limited, and replaceable. 6 / 14

2)
Was it worth it to enter AA? I will focus on fighter, ranger, and sorcerer as comparison points. These classes provide easy entry and a decent number of spells to fuel imbue arrow. As for skills, you greatly increase your available options if you came in from fighter, but ranger has a comparable list. The skills are quite different from arcane casters' lists. Although it gains fewer skill points per level than a ranger, it gains more skill points than a fighter. It is most similar to ranger and being a core PrC, it feels as though it was designed for rangers. You keep the full BAB of the fighter and ranger, get another good save over the fighter and maintain the same saves as the ranger. The one (or more) levels you take as sorcerer provide better will saves which you lose out on, but that's about it.

It appears you are better off with AA than fighter, but the difference between ranger and AA isn't so favorable. If you could go straight ranger, just ranger/sorcerer, or take the AA levels, you may be better off with just ranger/sorcerer. By taking a greater number of levels in sorcerer, you are losing BAB but gaining better spells. If you consider the break point for ranger at 6 with both builds, you end up with 14 levels of sorcerer, or 7th level casting. I don't think 10 levels of AA come anywhere close to that level of versatility even if every spell known is spent on self-buffs to power your archery.

One fun build could be ranger 6/sorc 1/AA 2/sorc+. This way you can continue fueling your imbue arrow without worrying about gaining little-use abilities. 1 / 4

3)
How restrictive are the prerequisites? Well, as an archer you should be taking levels in full BAB classes, you will almost certainly already want point blank shot and precise shot, which just leaves one level of an arcane class and the feat tax of weapon focus. I think these are numerous enough not to be considered “minor” prereqs, but they aren't extreme. I say “medium.” 1 / 2

Arcane Archer: 8 / 20

[PhantasyPen]

I agree with most of your points here, but I think you were a bit overharsh to Seeker Arrow. The 1/day limitation warrants only a -1 at most. It would also be useful to mark off where points are being gained rather than lost, in order to clarify your thinking process a bit.

[IraWolf]

I think your point about racial prerequisites not being a consideration for the judging process is somewhat misguided. If the stated reasoning is "they are more fluff than they are mechanical and can be easily negotiated with a DM" at least. Saying that a race is more fluff than mechanical is a strange claim when so many builds make heavy use of the selected race to do X. When we talk about "kobold sorcerer" as a concept we aren't able to divorce the two, because the kobold part of that is important. Same with things like racial substitution levels, or even racial paragon classes. All of these things are pretty heavily mechanical, and are more or less impossible to divorce from your race.

In addition, there are an absolute boatload of cases where racial prerequisites are important just for the class to function as-written, and not throwing them out the window for common-sense purposes is a deliberate inconsistency with how the other classes like dwarven defender or halfling outrider are treated. There are two main groups of these; monstrous PrCs and player-intended PrCs. I still think the monstrous PrCs are worth consideration (if you can talk a DM into letting your half-ogre be a halfling outrider, you can probably talk him into letting you play a beholder if the level is high enough), but even the ones that aren't quote on quote "intended" to be NPCs have some pretty hard-to-avoid issues if entered with an improper race. Eye of Gruumsh is a great example of degenerate behavior; if you lift the racial requirement, suddenly your class features make no sense. Why are you still able to control orcs? What if your character can't actually spit (any undead character, or the like)? Eye of Gruumsh isn't intended to work with a race other than orc or half-orc, and the abilities the class gains reflect that. Orcs or half-orcs are in possession of both orc kinfolk, and mouths with working salivary glands. How about Gnome Giant-Slayer, which without racial prerequisites can be taken by giants? The list goes on.

I think making the claim that these excluded prerequisites are only a matter of fluff, and can be safely ignored for the purpose of prerequisite requirements, is a fairly unproductive claim, and I think this would be a more true analysis of each PrC if the actual restrictions of the class were followed properly. I also think that "the DM will probably let your Chaotic-Evil character play a Knight of the Chalice, so we don't need to talk about the alignment prerequisite" is equally silly, but I do agree that's MORE of a fluff issue (although I would still refrain from axing it from the discussion entirely).

[Mike Miller]

I agree with most of your points here, but I think you were a bit overharsh to Seeker Arrow. The 1/day limitation warrants only a -1 at most. It would also be useful to mark off where points are being gained rather than lost, in order to clarify your thinking process a bit.

I assume max points and just remove them as I go, rather than add and remove points. I could see it being -1 instead of -2 for Seeker Arrow. I was on the fence with that.

[Mike Miller]

I think your point about racial prerequisites not being a consideration for the judging process is somewhat misguided. If the stated reasoning is "they are more fluff than they are mechanical and can be easily negotiated with a DM" at least. Saying that a race is more fluff than mechanical is a strange claim when so many builds make heavy use of the selected race to do X. When we talk about "kobold sorcerer" as a concept we aren't able to divorce the two, because the kobold part of that is important. Same with things like racial substitution levels, or even racial paragon classes. All of these things are pretty heavily mechanical, and are more or less impossible to divorce from your race.

In addition, there are an absolute boatload of cases where racial prerequisites are important just for the class to function as-written, and not throwing them out the window for common-sense purposes is a deliberate inconsistency with how the other classes like dwarven defender or halfling outrider are treated. There are two main groups of these; monstrous PrCs and player-intended PrCs. I still think the monstrous PrCs are worth consideration (if you can talk a DM into letting your half-ogre be a halfling outrider, you can probably talk him into letting you play a beholder if the level is high enough), but even the ones that aren't quote on quote "intended" to be NPCs have some pretty hard-to-avoid issues if entered with an improper race. Eye of Gruumsh is a great example of degenerate behavior; if you lift the racial requirement, suddenly your class features make no sense. Why are you still able to control orcs? What if your character can't actually spit (any undead character, or the like)? Eye of Gruumsh isn't intended to work with a race other than orc or half-orc, and the abilities the class gains reflect that. Orcs or half-orcs are in possession of both orc kinfolk, and mouths with working salivary glands. How about Gnome Giant-Slayer, which without racial prerequisites can be taken by giants? The list goes on.

I think making the claim that these excluded prerequisites are only a matter of fluff, and can be safely ignored for the purpose of prerequisite requirements, is a fairly unproductive claim, and I think this would be a more true analysis of each PrC if the actual restrictions of the class were followed properly. I also think that "the DM will probably let your Chaotic-Evil character play a Knight of the Chalice, so we don't need to talk about the alignment prerequisite" is equally silly, but I do agree that's MORE of a fluff issue (although I would still refrain from axing it from the discussion entirely).

Lots of points to touch on here, but I have a simple answer. I pumped the prereqs into minor/medium/major. Races can be considered a part of whichever grouping you want. I will say they are minor and not subtract points for racial req.

[PhantasyPen]

Hey Mike, remind me if you were okay with community members posting their own PrC evaluations using the categories/template provided?

[Mike Miller]

Yes, I encourage people to give critiques. In case it wasn't evident from the inspiration, I was hoping people would give their 2 cents, the votes tallied, and new ratings based on that info provided.

I would like to go in order though, if that was what you were asking.

[Mike Miller]

I think your point about racial prerequisites not being a consideration for the judging process is somewhat misguided. If the stated reasoning is "they are more fluff than they are mechanical and can be easily negotiated with a DM" at least. Saying that a race is more fluff than mechanical is a strange claim when so many builds make heavy use of the selected race to do X. When we talk about "kobold sorcerer" as a concept we aren't able to divorce the two, because the kobold part of that is important. Same with things like racial substitution levels, or even racial paragon classes. All of these things are pretty heavily mechanical, and are more or less impossible to divorce from your race.

In addition, there are an absolute boatload of cases where racial prerequisites are important just for the class to function as-written, and not throwing them out the window for common-sense purposes is a deliberate inconsistency with how the other classes like dwarven defender or halfling outrider are treated. There are two main groups of these; monstrous PrCs and player-intended PrCs. I still think the monstrous PrCs are worth consideration (if you can talk a DM into letting your half-ogre be a halfling outrider, you can probably talk him into letting you play a beholder if the level is high enough), but even the ones that aren't quote on quote "intended" to be NPCs have some pretty hard-to-avoid issues if entered with an improper race. Eye of Gruumsh is a great example of degenerate behavior; if you lift the racial requirement, suddenly your class features make no sense. Why are you still able to control orcs? What if your character can't actually spit (any undead character, or the like)? Eye of Gruumsh isn't intended to work with a race other than orc or half-orc, and the abilities the class gains reflect that. Orcs or half-orcs are in possession of both orc kinfolk, and mouths with working salivary glands. How about Gnome Giant-Slayer, which without racial prerequisites can be taken by giants? The list goes on.

I think making the claim that these excluded prerequisites are only a matter of fluff, and can be safely ignored for the purpose of prerequisite requirements, is a fairly unproductive claim, and I think this would be a more true analysis of each PrC if the actual restrictions of the class were followed properly. I also think that "the DM will probably let your Chaotic-Evil character play a Knight of the Chalice, so we don't need to talk about the alignment prerequisite" is equally silly, but I do agree that's MORE of a fluff issue (although I would still refrain from axing it from the discussion entirely).

Finally had the time to sit down and respond to your points more specifically. First, when you bring up the "kobold sorcerer," it isn't really about a class needing a race so much as a very specific build. I don't think this example is the greatest analogy. I also want to note that Dwarven Defender could totally be any-race Defender. Just be a sturdy, stout example of that race. Also, Halfling Outrider? Just replace the mount....Again, Eye of Gruumsh, super easy to refluff. Let's say the setting just doesn't have orcs. Instead, they have gnolls! Eye of Yeeoguhgoughoguhgou anyone? These are all very fluffy. If you want it to be followed "properly," then just consider the racial prereq as "minor" and don't remove points for it. Any race can do any class theoretically with DM approval, the stats don't matter that much outside of min/maxing. People can play half-orc sorcerers and gnome uberchargers.

These options aren't the "best," but they function. Alignment is probably the easiest to ignore because it is highly subjective and relative.


So, as stated, if you want to evaluate it differently, go for it. I just don't believe any class should lose points for such reqs.

[Saintheart]

Sounds like what you're getting at there is that the opportunity cost of a racial prerequisite is relatively low, because -- mainly due to LA and RHD -- races are qualitatively and very roughly interchangeable. And on that I do agree.

That said, if one needed a sort of standard by which to benchmark a racial prerequisite against, I'd venture it would be: to what extent does going as this racial PrC make up for having to deviate away from playing a human?

Human tends to crop up as a preferable, if not preferred, player race in most guides or handbooks. I would posit - if the guides and handbooks don't otherwise say so specifically, and many of them do - that this preferred status is mainly because of a human's two most versatile features: the bonus feat and the extra skill points through the levels. These allow you to build better and make your character just that little bit more effective in the skills area. So maybe it makes sense to judge a racial prerequisite against that standard: in order to play the Eye of Gruumsh, you are at least having to forego a bonus feat and extra skill points. Part of your compensation for that (in the case of playing a half-orc) is the racial +2 to STR (which is balanced, if not outweighed, by -2 INT and -2 CHA) and darkvision -- but if that doesn't make up for a lost feat and skill points, what other compensations does the PrC offer to make up for that opportunity cost?

In summary: when assessing a class with a racial prerequisite, given you can virtually always play a human, then does the racial prerequisite on balance result in you having more than a bonus feat and +1 skill points per level, taking into account both the race you have to play to be the PrC and the PrC's class features?


For example, looking at the Arcane Archer itself: the race restriction is elf or half-elf. So there goes your default bonus feat and extra skill point you'd have had from human. What does (SRD) elf give you in return?

+2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution.
Medium: As Medium creatures, elves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Elf base land speed is 30 feet.
Immunity to magic sleep effects, and a +2 racial saving throw bonus against enchantment spells or effects.
Low-Light Vision: An elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. She retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite shortbow) as bonus feats.
+2 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks. An elf who merely passes within 5 feet of a secret or concealed door is entitled to a Search check to notice it as if she were actively looking for it.

What does half-elf give you in return?

Medium: As Medium creatures, half-elves have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Half-elf base land speed is 30 feet.
Immunity to sleep spells and similar magical effects, and a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells or effects.
Low-Light Vision: A half-elf can see twice as far as a human in starlight, moonlight, torchlight, and similar conditions of poor illumination. She retains the ability to distinguish color and detail under these conditions.
+1 racial bonus on Listen, Search, and Spot checks.
+2 racial bonus on Diplomacy and Gather Information checks.
Elven Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf.

It's a matter of judgment, but I would argue that, unless you're playing at low levels, the half-elf's racial features do not justify loss of a bonus feat and skill points.

Elves, though, are slightly ahead since by a RAW interpretation they explicitly pick up several bonus feats which could then be retrained or Dark Chaos Shuffled for more useful stuff -- if your DM allowed that rule. However, the +2 to DEX is at best a wash given you pay for it with less survivability due to that -2 to CON. Assuming retraining, though, more feats in exchange for one feat is at least a fair exchange.

Then we look to the features of Arcane Archer itself. Does it do anything special, enhance, or make it better to play the race that you have to be to enter the class? My answer would be 'no', because the only things the PrC does are either for any archer or are outright subsumed by the elf's own racial abilities - notice how the Arcane Archer is deemed proficient with all simple and martial weapons. But the primary weapon of the class is the bow - something the elf is given proficiency in at the outset. So the PrC doesn't do anything that substantively enhances the abilities of the elf that enters it. And for half-elves, there's even less of a case, since half-elf itself is inferior as a race to human, and Arcane Archer does nothing to meaningfully remedy the situation.

[Mike Miller]

excellent analysis

I like everything you came up with, Saintheart. I think I realized something else that I hadn't put to words yet: I want the evaluation to be centered on the PrC and not the potentially-more-fluff-than-it-should-be racial/alignment prereqs. Consider again, the Arcane Archer. None of the abilities affect being an Elf or Half-Elf. Arrows, enhancement bonuses, etc... The abilities of the prestige class in no way impact your race. There are very few, if any, PrCs that actually have benefits which affect your race or alignment in a direct, mechanical way.

[Luccan]

I think the only reason to compare to human is if human (theoretically) lets you enter the class earlier than you normally would. Sure, an extra feat and skills is better than a couple +2s and low-light vision, but does it significantly impact the actual PrCs mechanics? I probably won't rate myself, but I'm curious to see where this project goes

[Saintheart]

I think I realized something else that I hadn't put to words yet: I want the evaluation to be centered on the PrC and not the potentially-more-fluff-than-it-should-be racial/alignment prereqs. Consider again, the Arcane Archer. None of the abilities affect being an Elf or Half-Elf. Arrows, enhancement bonuses, etc... The abilities of the prestige class in no way impact your race. There are very few, if any, PrCs that actually have benefits which affect your race or alignment in a direct, mechanical way.

True, but I actually see it the other way round: if (if) we accept the baseline for races as human, then having to play a different race in order to access a PrC becomes an opportunity cost in itself; by building your character to play that PrC, you lose the opportunity of playing human and its bonus feat and skill point per level. It's probably not a huge cost, because you would hope that what you gain out of the PrC is value above and beyond a feat and a skill point, but I'd humbly suggest it's a handy way of judging the 'cost' of a racial prerequisite in this area.

I think the only reason to compare to human is if human (theoretically) lets you enter the class earlier than you normally would. Sure, an extra feat and skills is better than a couple +2s and low-light vision, but does it significantly impact the actual PrCs mechanics?

I'd venture that an extra feat, depending on which one you pick, has a lot more potential to significantly impact a PrC's effectiveness than a couple of +2s and low-light vision, which is why I reckon human is a pretty good benchmark to measure a racial prerequisite against.

[Mike Miller]

I'd venture that an extra feat, depending on which one you pick, has a lot more potential to significantly impact a PrC's effectiveness than a couple of +2s and low-light vision, which is why I reckon human is a pretty good benchmark to measure a racial prerequisite against.

I think this falls into the concept that 3.5 is far too massive to weigh every option with every other option. If there are too many classes to compare opportunity costs, there are definitely too many builds and feats to compare. I don't see the one bonus human feat being so influential as to warrant a discussion for every PrC with feat prereqs.

[noce]

Still, by RAW both the Ranger/Sorcerer and the Fighter/Sorcerer builds you listed may suffer from XP penalty if your race is an Elf.
So you have to go either Wizard or Half-elf, or something like Fighter 4 / Sorcerer 4.

I'm not talking about strength but about choices. Having to play Elf or Half Elf limits you in many ways, including base classes you use to enter the PrC and build setup.
Also, BAB 6 is 1 point more than many many other PrCs, so you're delaying your PrC playing by a level, in addition to having to enter an arcane class, which further delays your entry one more level due to low BAB (except Duskblade or Hexblade).

For those two reasons I'd rate it 0/2 on the prereqs.

[liquidformat]

So I like the concept and think it is a really cool idea. With that said I am having trouble distinguishing between
2:Is the PrC worth the opportunity costs? 3:How strict are the prerequisites?
Having nasty prerequisites is a big part of your opportunity and therefore question 3 should more or less be a subset of question 2. It seems to me we could split question two into a couple of subparts and price them.

First we have prerequisites with a scale of 0-2

Second we have PRC stats: BAB, Saves, Skill Points, skill list, spells (could be another 0-2)

Third, the comparison factor is a strange one since it is really a function of question 1 'What are the benefits of the PrC useful?' presumably a PRC with high numbers in question 1 is going to get a higher score here. Another way to look at this I suppose is you get 0 points if the prc isn't worth taking, .5 point for a 1-2 level dip, 1 for 3-5 level dip, and 2 points for worth taking full prc.

Another comment on the rating system as a whole. I am not sure if assuming 14 points and then subtracting off points from there is a good way to go as we have prcs where a single ability gotten at the end is the point point of the class like rainbow servant.

[Mike Miller]

By any chance do you have any input for the rest of the rating noce? Mayhaps enough to give a final rating? :)

In response to liquidformat, the difference between 2 and 3 may appear subtle, but I can explain it further. 2 is the comparison of what you receive from sticking with likely base classes vs what you are receiving with the PrC. One example from Arcane Archer is the higher spellcasting (again with a focus on archery because that is the character) from sorcerer vs the 1/day arrow abilities and enhancement bonuses of AA. It is a case of, "You could have had this..."

Whereas 3 is specifically the prereqs with the assumption that, yes, you are taking this PrC. What are the prereqs, how numerous, how many levels are needed to achieve them, etc. It isn't exact and not always a deciding factor so it is only worth 2 points. I broke it into the vague categories of minor / medium / major to more readily rate the prereqs.

I do note dips, but PrCs come in very different lengths (3-15 levels) so assigning specific points for different level dips doesn't seem right to me.

I am open to other rating methods. I am trying to be as clear as possible with my methodology so that it can either be adjusted or followed by others. I find this method to be clear cut and easy to assign scores. I start with a complete score and remove points for violations. If an ability doesn't work well or is easily replaced by an item or spell or other, it is less valuable and costs the PrC points. If the character is worse off in the PrC relative to the base classes it would likely have, it takes a hit. If the prereqs are onerous, it loses points. However, if the PrC functions well, has useful abilities, compares favorably to the base classes, and has acceptable prereqs, then it will receive a positive rating.

[liquidformat]

Yeah after I posted about dipping I rethought about it and probably a better way to describe is light dip, medium dip, or taking the full prc.

I think over all your evaluation was pretty good, though for the purpose of evaluating prcs I think it is important to stick with RAW unless something is written ambiguously or has common arguments in the thread. So it in that way it is better to treat races as part of the cost. Besides that I think giving seeker arrows a -2 points is appropriate since both Woodland Archer and Improved Precise Shot both more or less do the same thing.

One interesting comment to make is that Imbue Arrow allows you to add any area spell you know to your arrows not just arcane spells. A pretty optimized build could looks like: Mystic Ranger 12-14/Arcane Archer 2/XX with Sword of the Arcane Order the last couple open levels could let you hop into something like Justice of Weald and Woe or something else that adds more spells with at least 2/3 bab. As a two level dip for an archery Ranger this is a pretty decent choice.

[Mike Miller]

For what it is worth, I haven't gone against RAW. I just don't value the racial or alignment costs as worthy of a penalty. I never mention race or alignment in my evaluation. Feel free to do so. I have stated my case for why I won't be using them as an influential factor in my scores.

[Saintheart]

Appreciated - please don't take any of my comments as destructive, that's just my personal spin on it, and this is a really worthwhile effort.

As for my rating: I actually am on point with your analysis of the class, but I would rate it 7/20 and make only the following observations to explain why that is so (i.e. a -1 on your rating):

(1) Imbue Arrow I'm harsher on by -1 mainly because of the BAB you have to be in order to get into the class. Arcane Archer does not advance any spellcasting, and given you therefore have to give up two caster levels, that means you're casting 4th level spells while everyone else is casting 5th. Taking Duskblade is probably the quickest way to get up to the required BAB, but even there you're foregoing or delaying decent toys as well as your casting in order to pick this up, and it's not like Duskblade spells really should be getting cast in arrows anyhow. I just can't think of a build where it's rational to dip 2 levels in Arcane Archer given what you otherwise then give up.

(2) The racial prerequisite would normally persuade me to hit it with another -1, but on balance forcing you to be an elf and giving you a bunch of ab/useable feat slots makes up for losing the human's bonus feat and skill point. The same, though, can't be said for half-elves: I don't think the loss of the bonus feat and skill points is made up for in any way by this class as such. So it's a bit of a wash.

Thus: 7/20.

[liquidformat]

(1) Imbue Arrow I'm harsher on by -1 mainly because of the BAB you have to be in order to get into the class. Arcane Archer does not advance any spellcasting, and given you therefore have to give up two caster levels, that means you're casting 4th level spells while everyone else is casting 5th. Taking Duskblade is probably the quickest way to get up to the required BAB, but even there you're foregoing or delaying decent toys as well as your casting in order to pick this up, and it's not like Duskblade spells really should be getting cast in arrows anyhow. I just can't think of a build where it's rational to dip 2 levels in Arcane Archer given what you otherwise then give up.

I am on the fence with imbue arrow the real power of the ability is improving the range of any area spell which has a range less than long and the fact that it can be used on arcane as well as divine spells. Also it is the only way to deliver such spells using a bow in 3.5 which makes it if nothing else unique. Also a duskblade probably shouldn't be even mentioned in regards to this class since it doesn't have any spells that qualify for the ability. Where it does come in is when someone is trying to build an archer gish.

The easiest and best way to do so would be as I said above mystic ranger with sword of arcane order feat. For a mystic ranger you gain no new spell levels after level 10 and almost no class features after level 14 as an opportunity cost you are only loosing 1 3rd level spell and 4 skill points compared to go mystic ranger 20 that is quite a good dip for the added versatility imbue arrow adds.

For a sorcerer or wizard base taking the 2 level dip and still getting level 9 spells is a bit more of a struggle, a battle sorcerer could take the dip at 8th level earliest and it would allow her to make 16 bab by 20 but couldn't take any other prcs that drop bab below 2/3rds or loose spell levels. I don't think a wizard could hit bab 16 take 2 levels of AA and have level 9 spells. Moreover for both wizard and sorcerer there is little benefit to imbue arrow outside of the fluff of wielding a bow while being a gish. A beguiler similarly doesn't seem to really be gaining anything from any of her spells that could qualify for imbue arrows while dread necro doesn't have the right list to care about the prc.

Over all I think I am in fave of a 7/20 for Arcane Archer since Mystic Ranger with Sword of Arcane order is the only real build that is really gaining anything through this dip.

[Saintheart]

I am on the fence with imbue arrow the real power of the ability is improving the range of any area spell which has a range less than long and the fact that it can be used on arcane as well as divine spells. Also it is the only way to deliver such spells using a bow in 3.5 which makes it if nothing else unique.

In terms of formally channelling spells through arrows I agree it's unique, but that trick (or at least an equivalent effect) can still be accomplished without having to go Arcane Archer and without having to submit to the trail of tears of its progression. A Cleric 5/Runecaster 3 can do all but the same thing by inscribing a rune on the arrow and setting it to a 'trigger on passed' activation condition. Shoot your arrow with an AC 5 to hit a ground spot, and the spell in the rune targets anything that comes within 30 feet of the arrow. No restrictions on touch range or area effect spells, it's a quick magic trap. True, that's more of an item creation thing, it requires a little more cheese to do it with arcane spells, and it takes 10 minutes to make a rune, but at least a runecaster can pull it off more than once per day and can prepare his arrows an unlimited amount of time ahead.

[Mike Miller]

Looks like we are moving towards 7 / 20 for Arcane Archer. I welcome further input, but I will also open up the next entry:

Arcane Trickster

Spoiler

Show

1)
The arcane trickster is a combination of a rogue and arcane caster. You can sort of view this as a theurge class, but you continue advancing sneak attack and spellcasting instead of two spellcasting progressions. Unfortunately, that almost sums up the abilities of the arcane trickster laready. The half BAB doesn't help with sneak attacking, but it continues the good Reflex from rogue and good Will from most arcane casters.

Ranged Legerdemain allows for disable device, open lock, and sleight of hand at a distance. It has a daily limit, which is never good. Disable device and open lock can typically already be done at range with some clever thinking. Sleight of hand can too with the right setup, but is probably the best use of this ability. As far as traps go, you are still better off with some remote trigger most of the time, as opposed to being in the line of sight of the trap.

As mentioned, sneak attack continues progressing at the normal rate of every other level starting at second level.

Impromptu sneak attack is the final ability for the AT and has a daily limit. This ability allows you to just declare a sneak attack without actually satisfying the conditions. Fortunately, it isn't called out as a standard or full attack, so you should be able to use it twice in one full attack after reaching the cap of 2/day. By the time you have this ability, you could have more reliable means of causing sneak attacks than a single use ability, though.

All in all, I think the only favorable way to look at the AT is as a theurge of rogue and a preferred arcane caster. The only dip here that makes sense is to reach level 3 for the impromptu sneak attack. It isn't really a dip anymore if you stay in for 7 levels just to reach impromptu 2/day. There is no capstone, so the best use of AT is to focus on arcane spells that synergize with sneak attack. It doesn't bring anything impressive to the table, but as a full caster it should be competent, at least. 8 / 14

2)
For entry, let's look at rogue/wizard, wizard/swordsage, and spellthief. You are losing the rogue BAB for the wizard BAB, but saves are good except Fort. Skills are extensive, which is always nice.

The standard rogue/wizard looks like the core entry method. AT just carries on as if the two classes were always one. You barely gain anything over either individual class, but this means you are gaining two classes worth of stuff for the price of one. You'll be at least 3 caster levels behind this way, so you may end up focusing more on buffing yourself to have better sneak attacks. Still seems better off than just progressing one base class; especially when you remember how minor the higher level rogue class features are.

As for the wizard/swordsage, you are using the assassin's stance to qualify after taking your wizard levels. Now you are looking more like a wizard who happens to become better at sneak attacking. This is more of a “well we need a rogue type character, so it is up to me” situation. Being one level behind in casting isn't so bad and you'll probably be using spells to tack on sneak attack damage. Probably still better off here than just continuing a base class.

If spellthief can be ruled as capable of casting mage hand via steal spell as well as a 3rd level spell, then spellthief can enter at 7th level. As the spellthief needs sneak attacks to fuel the steal spell ability, I really like AT for spellthief. Impromptu sneak attack means extra easy stolen spells. The downside is spellthief is not a full caster. Those levels of +spellcasting aren't doing nearly as much for this character as the wizard entry. Also, spellthief actually has useful higher level abilities that you are missing out on, such as stealing higher level spells. AT probably isn't worth the loss of those features from spellthief, or even the delay given the half casting nature of the class.

AT really does excel when it comes to carrying on the base classes' roles. Spellthief lends itself so naturally to the arcane trickster (it is even a similar name spell/arcane thief/trickster), that I can't ignore the missed chance at synergy. I will go with 3 / 4 for now.

3)
The prereqs are plentiful but generally easy to achieve. There are a number of skill ranks, but they are all likely to be class skills and relatively low, at 7 ranks. Needing sneak attack +2d6 fits in well with the required skills. The “cast third level spells” is the longest requirement to achieve and restricts you to arcane spells. As with most blends of multiple classes, this one has too many prereqs to pass off as “minor.” None of them are too difficult to obtain and there are multiple ways of getting them, so I say “medium.” 1 / 2

Arcane Trickster: 12 / 20

[liquidformat]

True, that's more of an item creation thing, it requires a little more cheese to do it with arcane spells, and it takes 10 minutes to make a rune, but at least a runecaster can pull it off more than once per day and can prepare his arrows an unlimited amount of time ahead.

Huh I haven't looked at the rune caster before but that is a pretty cool idea, especially since cleric elves make great archers! One point though as written, imbue arrow as written doesn't have any use restriction beyond the number of area spells you can cast.

Arcane Trickster:

Swordsage/Wizard doesn't seem like a good entry path to AT, it has neither escape artist nor disable device which restricts entry to level 11. On the other hand Beguiler 6/swordsage 3 gets entry one level after your rogue/wizard could.

The problem I see with going spellthief/AT is you are loosing progression one your one useful spellthief ability by diving into AT which ends up being a huge loss since spellthief's native casting sucks. Also it is important to note that having 1/2 bab progression and 4+int skill points/level makes this the worst rogue theurge class and I believe this combination of detractors is worth pulling another point if not two off of arcane trickster.

I am going with 10/20 it is an ok theurge prc if you have nothing else to go into but doesn't have anything going for than being slightly better than taking your base classes.

[chaos_redefined]

There is an entry method you missed. Wizard 5/Rogue 1/Assassin 1. Loses one less caster level, putting it on par with Eldritch Knight.

[Troacctid]

You can also do it without losing any casting at all via Martial Study + Martial Stance. The UA variant wizard that gets fighter bonus feats is great for this.

[Saintheart]

You can also do it without losing any casting at all via Martial Study + Martial Stance. The UA variant wizard that gets fighter bonus feats is great for this.

It'll get you the sneak attack certainly, but does it solve the skill issue? Arcane Trickster requires 7 ranks in Decipher Script and Disable Device, which aren't class skills for the Wizard. Or rather you could still qualify without losing casting that way, but given max ranks in those skills are capped at half that of class skills, I don't think you could qualify for Arcane Trickster before about Wizard 10 without a Rogue level in there?

[Troacctid]

It'll get you the sneak attack certainly, but does it solve the skill issue? Arcane Trickster requires 7 ranks in Decipher Script and Disable Device, which aren't class skills for the Wizard. Or rather you could still qualify without losing casting that way, but given max ranks in those skills are capped at half that of class skills, I don't think you could qualify for Arcane Trickster before about Wizard 10 without a Rogue level in there?

Wizard 10 is the minimum because you need IL 5 for the stance. Without the swordsage dip, that's character level 10. If the skills are cross-class for you, 11. If you don't have a way to get Assassin's Stance outside the normal feat progression, 12. But I think most likely you'd either go Wizard 10/Spellwarp Sniper 5/Arcane Trickster X, or tack it on after another prestige class e.g. Wizard 3/Master Specialist 10/Arcane Trickster X. Flexible Mind can give you the class skills you need; if you're going for a later entry, Able Learner is fine too.

[Saintheart]

As for the actual guessessment of Arcane Trickster: it probably has most utility as a weak rogue to which you add arcane spellcasting, the spellcasting being aimed at amping up the rogue's abilities. But it makes you more squishy (d6 drops to d4) and drops your BAB to a Wizard's. Just as well it gives you ranged options. The requirement to be nonlawful I don't consider an impost since none of your entry paths have any alignment specifications anyway and don't affect your progression in rogue or wizard.

Leeching off Mike's assessment once more, I rate the drop in BAB and hit dice more serious, but only by one. If there were a credible divine alternative giving me Divine Power to compensate for this I might be persuaded otherwise, but I think it's just a bit too tricky. Thus, for me, 11/20.