Rainbow Servant: Fixed?

[GrayDeath]

Consider this a "Homebrewewd as the Playground would do it" Thread.

Since it came up again recently, and we all have likely had enough of the discussions about it (is it even functional, if yes, how? Would you allow it? etc) AND my Co-DM recently said he liked the concept:

Assuming you were to errata the Rainbow Servant, how would you do it?

Casting progression?

Aquiring the notorious Cleric Spells?

Other Changes to the Chassis?

And why?

Looking forward to all your Ideas. :)

[NigelWalmsley]

First things first: as with any caster PrC, any Rainbow Servant fix should be full casting. Partial progression does not work as a balancing mechanism, and tends to encourage people to take less PrCs than is mechanically optimal. Since PrCs are a powerful tool for character definition, that's a very bad thing. If your PrC is game breaking at full progression, it is too good (e.g. Incantatrix).

I think the primary change I'd make would be to have the class grant access to Cleric spells in a more incremental fashion. Right now there's a very polarized payoff where the Rainbow Servant capstone is the best ability in the game for a fixed list caster, but the rest of the abilities are somewhat mediocre. If you're not going to get to 10th, you're better off dropping at 1st and switching to something with class features. That encourages metagaming your class choice by trying to decide if you think the game will end before or after 16th, which is not desirable.

You should also maintain the synergy of the class with fixed list casters. The Rainbow Warsnake is an iconic and interesting build, and having something that pays off more for certain classes encourages a greater variety of characters and creates "ah ha!" moments that are desirable. Which limits your solutions on the first front somewhat, as it means you can't simply grant a certain number of Cleric spells per level and call it done.

I think I would probably borrow the progression Mage of the Arcane Order uses for its Spellpool, and use that for Cleric spell access. So up to 3rd at 1st level, then 6th at 4th, and 9th at 7th. At those rates, full access is almost certainly too good (frankly, it is anyway), so I would probably limit it to something like "one spell from the Cleric list for each spell gained at level up", which makes the Rainbow Warsnake the best build for the class while preventing it from being a strictly better Cleric at high levels.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Barring early entry, it works fine. It's not worth taking if it doesn't give full spellcasting progression (which it does), and there's no issues with granting a Tier 3-4 class access to the full Cleric spell list at level 16+, because it's at level 16+. Most games are wrapping up by then, so why not let the character get a pile of new tricks for the last few sessions?

The only time it was ever used in my group we did a Phoenix Servant variant with the Good, Fire, and Renewal domains, but otherwise identical. It worked out fine.

[Endarire]

I'd specify that Cleric spells gained from Rainbow Servant are treated the same type (arcane or divine) as the list to which the spells are added. The primary ability scores to determine spell DCs and the level of spells castable are the same as the original class.

I recommend spreading out the Cleric spell gain.across 9 or 10 levels, depending on whether you keep the class as 9 levels or 10.

I'd change the formal requirements to be such that casters can enter at level 2 if they really want. It's effectively an alternative to full fixed list caster.

Just give the class full casting.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

So, basic goals:
Distribute the Cleric casting across the entire PRC, so that it provides benefits throughout.
Be better than a generic Mystic Theurge.
Make this a viable option for Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warmages without breaking any of them.
Do NOT qualify the char for Divine PRCs or grant Turning.

Requires 2nd level Arcane spells, Know:Arc 8 ranks, Know:Relig 4 ranks, Nonevil/nonchaotic, must worship a Couatl or group of Couatl
2+Int, d4, half BAB.
9 level PRC. Full spellcasting progression.
At 1st level, the character gains the ability to cast Cleric spells of a spell level equal to their Rainbow Servant class level from their existing arcane spell slots. Even though these spells are drawn from the cleric spell list, they are arcane spells and use the character's arcane casting ability score and arcane class abilities. This ability does not give the character any ability to cast cleric spells of a higher spell level than they can for their existing Arcane spellcasting class. Like a Cleric, the character has access to the entire Cleric spell list as spells known without needing a spellbook. These spells must be prepared in arcane slots in the morning, by praying to the Couatls for 15 minutes at sunrise in addition to any other spell preparation or spell recovery time the character normally requires. Even a spontaneous arcane caster must prepare these spells, setting aside slots for their Rainbow Servant spells that cannot be used to spontaneously cast arcane spells until the next time the character prays for new spells.
At 1st level, this character gains the ability to activate divine spell completion and spell trigger items as a Cleric who's class level is equal to their arcane caster level. (this is purely because it would be weird if someone could cast Cure Light Wounds but not use a wand of it)
At third level, the character gains the Scalykind Domain, following the standard rules for gaining domain spell slots and granted abilities. At 6th level, the character also gains the Air Domain. At 9th level, the character gains the Pride Domain. The Domain spells are considered Arcane spells. (mostly this is that I just don't like the Alignment domains)
(Distribute the various SLAs to taste, they're mostly not worth worrying about)


Notable things: Even a Sorcerer can enter at lvl 6(though the skill points hurt). Doesn't require finding an ancient temple. Still more powerful than I like, especially with the domain slots and powers. Requires preparing Cleric spells, which I hate doing, but I don't see a better way of balancing that. If you make Sorcerers take Cleric spells as Spells Known, it's worthless for Sorcerers, since they don't have enough anyway. Any sort of spontaneous casting from the whole list breaks Dread Necros et al. And giving a bunch of Cleric-spell specific slots is a massive boost for Wizards, who are supposed to be slot-limited.

Break points:
Level 1(ECL 6): Gains access to Divine wands and scrolls.
Level 3(ECL 8): First domain
Level 6(ECL 11): Second domain, can finally dip another PRC without losing Cleric progression.
Level 9(ECL 14): Third domain, have guaranteed that you'll get 9th level Cleric spells.

This probably ends up overpowered slightly, but there's plenty of other stuff out there for an arcanist that's worse, and linking it to Rainbow Servant casting means that the player has to actively stick with the class. I'd like to make it lose a spell level, but with that casting mechanic, it wouldn't be worth it.

[Thurbane]

At my table we run Rainbow Servant as table trumps text...

Not sure if that is palatable for everyone, though.

[Nifft]

Some basic guidelines:

Figure out your intended mechanical audience. It looks like Rainbow Servant was intended to provide a meager benefit to Wizards & Sorcerers, and a poor interaction (and poor editing) resulted in a substantially superior benefit for an unintended category (Warmage & Beguiler).

It would be better to provide a decent benefit to the intended audience, and not provide a superior benefit to unintended categories.

So, declare who you want to benefit from the PrC, and write your mechanics to benefit those classes.


Second, it's possible to make a few related PrCs which impart comparable benefits to different entry classes. For example, a PrC named "Rainbow Warmage" might allow a spontaneous full-list caster to prepare a up to 2 Cleric spells at each level, and add those spells to his list for the day. That's congruent with the mechanics of both Cleric and Warmage casting, and won't break either of them. There's no need to shoehorn all types of arcane caster into a single class.

In that same vein, it might be better to break up Rainbow Wizard from Rainbow Sorcerer, since Wizards having the ability to prepare from the full Cleric list is quite a bit better than a Sorcerer being allowed to choose spells known from that same list.


Third, if it's a primary caster with decent features, make it 9/10 casting progression.

[NigelWalmsley]

It would be better to provide a decent benefit to the intended audience, and not provide a superior benefit to unintended categories.

No, it's better to make something mechanically interesting. There are already plenty of PrCs that are good for Wizards. If you make the Rainbow Servant into another thing that is good for them, the PrC becomes less interesting. The fact that it is good for Warmages and not Wizards is the primary reason anyone cares about it at all.

Third, if it's a primary caster with decent features, make it 9/10 casting progression.

No, don't do that. Lost casting progression is not a good tool for balancing PrCs. If you put it anywhere other than 1st, you create an incredibly obvious breakpoint that grants power for nothing in the same way that a full progression PrC does, except that it creates a mechanical tension between power and concept. If you put it at 1st, you're hitting the character when the power penalty isn't necessary, and where the impact is largest. Plus, adding that kind of cost will make people under-pick the PrC.

[Nifft]

The fact that it is good for Warmages and not Wizards is the primary reason anyone cares about it at all.

If you were to read my post, you might notice that I suggest creating a version which works with Warmage.

No, don't do that. Lost casting progression is not a good tool for balancing PrCs. If you put it anywhere other than 1st

Well gosh, don't do that.

There are many PrCs which cost a spellcaster level, and they're a lot easier to balance while providing legitimate class features.

Many good PrCs cost a spellcaster level.

You don't see them much in TO discussion threads because they're not unbalanced. Being unbalanced is desirable to the point of necessity for a TO discussion, but on the other side of the coin being unbalanced is undesirable when it comes to an actual game.

[NigelWalmsley]

If you were to read my post, you might notice that I suggest creating a version which works with Warmage.

You shouldn't create multiple versions, any more than you should create a version of Planar Shepherd that works with the Sorcerer. Different classes having different synergies is good.

There are many PrCs which cost a spellcaster level, and they're a lot easier to balance while providing legitimate class features.

No, they're harder to balance. Because the cost you pay to get in changes. What you lose for being down a level of casting is different at 6th, 12th, and 18th level. You have to make sure that the class features are worth it at each of those points, including the points at which the cost is still changing and you are getting no additional class features. It is infinitely easier to simply accept that PrCs are a slight power bump and balance them against each other.

being unbalanced is undesirable when it comes to an actual game.

So is not taking an option that fits your concept because you're concerned it comes at too high a cost. It's true that something like Mage of the Arcane Order is better than straight Wizard. But that's not even in the top twenty balance problems that exist. Plus, taking away caster levels doesn't even really fix anything, because people can just not take PrCs. If you make it so that Rainbow Servant is "balanced", that's just going to result in less people being Rainbow Servants, with overall balance quite possibly getting worse (compare stock Wizard v stock Warmage to Wizard/MoTAO v Rainbow Warsnake).

[Nifft]

You shouldn't create multiple versions, any more than you should create a version of Planar Shepherd that works with the Sorcerer. Different classes having different synergies is good.

You're not making any sense.

Planar Shepherd Sorcerer sounds fun.

No, they're harder to balance. Because the cost you pay to get in changes. What you lose for being down a level of casting is different at 6th, 12th, and 18th level. You have to make sure that the class features are worth it at each of those points, including the points at which the cost is still changing and you are getting no additional class features. It is infinitely easier to simply accept that PrCs are a slight power bump and balance them against each other.

Absolutely wrong. It's not the designer's job to make every decision fool-proof. You could make a Wizard with Int 8 who never puts another point into Int, and you'd absolutely flail about at most levels. I'll bet you could screw up anything if you tried hard enough.

The tools provided should be used intelligently, and should be balanced when used with a modicum of thought.

The tools should also not break the game.

So is not taking an option that fits your concept because you're concerned it comes at too high a cost. It's true that something like Mage of the Arcane Order is better than straight Wizard. But that's not even in the top twenty balance problems that exist. Plus, taking away caster levels doesn't even really fix anything, because people can just not take PrCs.

MotAO is a bit of a strawman when I could point to Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, and so on.

If you make it so that Rainbow Servant is "balanced", that's just going to result in less people being Rainbow Servants, with overall balance quite possibly getting worse (compare stock Wizard v stock Warmage to Wizard/MoTAO v Rainbow Warsnake).

Wait, you think people will only play unbalanced things in real games?

Can you justify that opinion?

[NotASpiderSwarm]

@Nigel:

People still recommend Malconvoker for summoner builds, and don't recommend Alienist. People recommend Dread Witch for fear-based builds. You can balance with losing a level of spellcasting to end up being better at one specific thing, and it's fine if that costs power initially. That's the cost players pay for the boost, that they have to work their way up to that point.

[Psyren]

Lots of people recommend Constructor too, and that loses two caster levels. I never bought the whole "if you make a PrC lose ANY caster levels you might as well be banning it entirely" argument, I find it incredibly reductive.

I recommend having a way to repair lost caster levels, like the "Prestigious Spellcaster" feat from Pathfinder, which lets you trade a valuable resource (feats) for casting progression, and thus makes a lot more interesting PrCs mechanically viable.

[NigelWalmsley]

Planar Shepherd Sorcerer sounds fun.

And so does candy for breakfast. Doesn't make it a good idea. People care about character identity. The fact that not every option works with every class is a feature, not a bug.

Absolutely wrong. It's not the designer's job to make every decision fool-proof.

That's not an argument for your position. It's not even an argument against my position. It's just throwing your hands up in the air and declaring that we shouldn't care about the tradeoff at all.

MotAO is a bit of a strawman when I could point to Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, and so on.

You could. And I could point out that Planar Binding is more broken than any of those.

Wait, you think people will only play unbalanced things in real games?

People overestimate costs. If you try to balance things by imposing big, obvious costs, people will overcorrect. Since the balance problems caused by PrCs are far smaller than the character customization provided by them, it's hard to make the case that we should be pushing people away from them.

That's the cost players pay for the boost, that they have to work their way up to that point.

And what about the campaigns that end at 6th level, when the player has paid the cost but gained no benefits, or the ones that start at 13th where the player has already gotten to the higher power level? Power now for power later is bad design, and does not actually feel like balance (thereby making its use as a balancing mechanism pointless).

I never bought the whole "if you make a PrC lose ANY caster levels you might as well be banning it entirely" argument, I find it incredibly reductive.

Well, yes, because that argument is a strawman. The real argument is that the balance gains for trying to mess around with casting progressions are minimal to nonexistent, and it pushes people not to take PrCs, which is bad because staying in a caster class for 20 levels produces builds that are boring and homogenous.

I recommend having a way to repair lost caster levels, like the "Prestigious Spellcaster" feat from Pathfinder, which lets you trade a valuable resource (feats) for casting progression, and thus makes a lot more interesting PrCs mechanically viable.

Why should people need to trade resources to make interesting things viable? Why not just have interesting things be viable? What's the benefit we're getting from demanding that someone shoot their character in the foot to get to play a rainbow mage or wear demon skin?

[Nifft]

And so does candy for breakfast. Doesn't make it a good idea.

Gummy vitamins sell quite well and are beloved by many. When you dis breakfast candy, your opinion is objectively wrong.

People care about (...)
People overestimate (...)
people will overcorrect (...)

Just you though. Other people will differ.

It's just throwing your hands up in the air and declaring that we shouldn't care about the tradeoff at all.

That's completely wrong. I'm recommending that the PC make a tradeoff which costs something in order to gain something else valuable.

Why should people need to trade resources to make interesting things viable? Why not just have interesting things be viable? What's the benefit we're getting from demanding that someone shoot their character in the foot to get to play a rainbow mage or wear demon skin?

Are you seriously asking about why players need to make choices about character abilities?

If every character could have every ability, then all characters would be homogeneous, bloated, boring, and the game would turn quite dull.

Having choices makes the game more interesting.

If you want to turn a game into something dull, please choose a different game. I'm enjoying this one, with all its choices and distinct character possibilities.

Your wish for boring, homogeneous characters isn't interesting to me.

[Psyren]

Well, yes, because that argument is a strawman. The real argument is that the balance gains for trying to mess around with casting progressions are minimal to nonexistent, and it pushes people not to take PrCs, which is bad because staying in a caster class for 20 levels produces builds that are boring and homogenous.

Only because there are so many powerful full-progression options. You can't tell me that something like Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper wouldn't still be popular at 9/10.

Why should people need to trade resources to make interesting things viable? Why not just have interesting things be viable? What's the benefit we're getting from demanding that someone shoot their character in the foot to get to play a rainbow mage or wear demon skin?

Are you saying that Constructor and Malconvoker aren't viable now?

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Well, yes, because that argument is a strawman. The real argument is that the balance gains for trying to mess around with casting progressions are minimal to nonexistent, and it pushes people not to take PrCs, which is bad because staying in a caster class for 20 levels produces builds that are boring and homogenous.

We're talking about trying to balance a class that gives spontaneous casting off of the entire Cleric spell list ATM and you're arguing that we shouldn't even consider making it cost a caster level. That seems like you're arguing that PRCs should never affect casting, because how broken would something have to be to make that worth it?

And yes, we want people to take PRCs. But why are you so sure that taking a PRC shouldn't have a cost? Shouldn't there be some sort of interesting trade-off, some element of "well, what do I actually care about with this char?". People will still PRC. People like PRCs, they like characters feeling different, and I guarantee, they'd be willing to sacrifice CL in exchange for fun abilities that make them something other than a Conjuration-Specialist Wizard.

Sure, some campaigns end at level 6. In those campaigns, even as-is I often won't PRC out because it's really not worth the skill ranks/feats to qualify.

[Esprit15]

9/10 casting progression, losing its caster level at level 1 of the prestige class (this should be standard in all prestige classes marketed toward full casters).

Rather than full cleric spell list access, gain two spells from the cleric spell list as spells known (or spells in your spellbook) at each level of the prestige class as a bonus. May also take cleric spells as normal learned spells.

Gain domain access as normal.

Wings are not limited by armor.

Give them something else rainbow flavored as a capstone ability. Capstone abilities are fun.

[NigelWalmsley]

Gummy vitamins sell quite well and are beloved by many. When you dis breakfast candy, your opinion is objectively wrong.

Yes, if you pretend I said a different thing from the thing I actually said, you would draw different conclusions. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this, aside from skepticism about whether it's worth continuing to engage with you.

Are you seriously asking about why players need to make choices about character abilities?

Did you know that there is in fact more than one prestige class? In fact, there are literal hundreds of prestige classes. While it would certainly be nice to have the tradeoff "PrC or not" be meaningful as well, if making "Wizard 20" a viable life choice results in just two PrCs being bad, you have objectively removed options. And if you look at the existing PrCs, which tried "take away caster levels to balance classes", you will note that more than two of them are worse than Wizard 20.

Your wish for boring, homogeneous characters isn't interesting to me.

Really? Because you're the one demanding a Rainbow Servant for every base class, and encouraging a paradigm where people are incentivized to make build choices that result in having less class features. Have you considered that you just haven't thought very much about how the things you're asking for work?

Only because there are so many powerful full-progression options. You can't tell me that something like Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper wouldn't still be popular at 9/10.

But would Mage of the Arcane Order? Would Green Star Adept? Would Alienist? There are a lot more casting PrCs than the two you mention, and most of them aren't worth losing caster levels. Moreover, trying to make this a serious tradeoff will push people towards the better PrCs, which will make observed imbalance worse. If Mindbender is a freeroll, it's easy to justify taking it over Incantatrix. But if you force people to think about the tradeoff, they'll tend to try to maximize the value they gain. That's human nature.

Beyond that, it's still not clear what we're supposed to be getting by doing this. You can't improve overall balance, because if taking a PrC makes your character worse, you can just not do that. You might make the tradeoff between Wizard 20 and Wizard 10/PrC 10 interesting, but it's not clear to me why we should prioritize making Wizard 20 a worthwhile build when it risks making so many other builds bad.

We're talking about trying to balance a class that gives spontaneous casting off of the entire Cleric spell list ATM and you're arguing that we shouldn't even consider making it cost a caster level.

You'll note that in my original post I suggested that you substantially curtail the number of spells it gets.

And yes, we want people to take PRCs. But why are you so sure that taking a PRC shouldn't have a cost? Shouldn't there be some sort of interesting trade-off, some element of "well, what do I actually care about with this char?".

Again, there are other PrCs. Why do we need to try to balance "you get interesting abilities that define a particular character concept that resonates with you" with "you don't do that"? It's like demanding that we balance "using your abilities to solve problems" with "not doing that". Maybe you could make that work, but why?

Sure, some campaigns end at level 6. In those campaigns, even as-is I often won't PRC out because it's really not worth the skill ranks/feats to qualify.

And isn't that a problem? You're making an in-character decision on the basis of out-of-character information. Shouldn't we be attacking that dynamic, rather than trying to make it more prevalent?

[Psyren]

Moreover, trying to make this a serious tradeoff will push people towards the better PrCs, which will make observed imbalance worse. If Mindbender is a freeroll, it's easy to justify taking it over Incantatrix. But if you force people to think about the tradeoff, they'll tend to try to maximize the value they gain. That's human nature.

Beyond that, it's still not clear what we're supposed to be getting by doing this. You can't improve overall balance, because if taking a PrC makes your character worse, you can just not do that. You might make the tradeoff between Wizard 20 and Wizard 10/PrC 10 interesting, but it's not clear to me why we should prioritize making Wizard 20 a worthwhile build when it risks making so many other builds bad.

I believe the premise here, as also summarized by Esprit15 and Nifft, is that every casting PrC would have a CL tradeoff. As for why you would do it, it's simple - wizard and sorcerer have pretty much no class features of note past first level (in 3.5, at least).

But would Mage of the Arcane Order? Would Green Star Adept? Would Alienist? There are a lot more casting PrCs than the two you mention, and most of them aren't worth losing caster levels.

Given that MotAO would still be "have any wizard spell you need appear in your mind in 6 seconds" and Green Star Adept would be "you're an immortal construct while retaining your own mind" (I assume we'd fix the fact that they get CL 29 pre-epic), then I'd actually say yes, being 9/10 wouldn't hurt them - and certainly it would be a big upgrade for the GSA. As for Alienist, it's bad at 10/10 CL so of course removing one wouldn't help, but its reasons for being bad have nothing to do with its casting progression as is plain.

[Nifft]

Yes, if you pretend I said a different thing from the thing I actually said, you would draw different conclusions. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from this, aside from skepticism about whether it's worth continuing to engage with you.

If all you have to offer is this sort of ignorant hostility, you might as well follow up on that threat.

Did you know that there is in fact more than one prestige class? In fact, there are literal hundreds of prestige classes. While it would certainly be nice to have the tradeoff "PrC or not" be meaningful as well, if making "Wizard 20" a viable life choice results in just two PrCs being bad, you have objectively removed options. And if you look at the existing PrCs, which tried "take away caster levels to balance classes", you will note that more than two of them are worse than Wizard 20.

But you're wrong. As you might notice by reading this thread, plenty of -1 spellcaster level PrCs are considered to be viable optimization choices.

As an aside, it's amusing that you complain about "pretending I said a different thing" and then immediately jump into a strawman argument in your next paragraph, but it's not particularly insightful. Rather the opposite.

Really? Because you're the one demanding a Rainbow Servant for every base class, and encouraging a paradigm where people are incentivized to make build choices that result in having less class features. Have you considered that you just haven't thought very much about how the things you're asking for work?

Oh hey, paragraph 3 and you're "pretending I said a different thing" again.

If that confuses you -- if you actually believe what you typed in the quoted text -- here's what I actually said:

Second, it's possible to make a few related PrCs which impart comparable benefits to different entry classes. For example, a PrC named "Rainbow Warmage" might allow a spontaneous full-list caster to prepare a up to 2 Cleric spells at each level, and add those spells to his list for the day. That's congruent with the mechanics of both Cleric and Warmage casting, and won't break either of them. There's no need to shoehorn all types of arcane caster into a single class.

If you're still confused, what's going on here is that I suggest having more than one PrC, which is actually different from "one PrC for each base class".

Beyond that, it's still not clear what we're supposed to be getting by doing this. You can't improve overall balance, because if taking a PrC makes your character worse, you can just not do that.

You're trying to claim that because perfection is impossible, therefore improvement is impossible.

You are wrong.

Improvement is possible.

And isn't that a problem? You're making an in-character decision on the basis of out-of-character information. Shouldn't we be attacking that dynamic, rather than trying to make it more prevalent?

That's a pointless distinction without a difference.

In-character, the PC targets some utility, ability, or affiliation. Out-of-character, the player does the exact same thing. The player uses meta-game concepts like "class" and "level", while the PC using training and so on.

The two "different" things stand for each other. There is no dynamic to attack.

[Remuko]

Im gonna throw my 2 cents in and im sure it wont be popular with a certain person in the discussion (if not more).

Mono class full casters should be STRONGER than any Full caster that prestiges out. Yeah, mono class is dull, but youre getting power for it. If you care about power. Go to 20 in Wiz/etc. Prestige classes should be about getting unique options you cant get in the base class, and yeah they should be weaker. Wiz 10/PrC 10 should be WEAKER than Wiz 20, but the PrC should make it more unique by its features. I'm not saying the game is like this right now but yeah.

So yeah I agree with -1 caster level at first level of PrC.

Also I've never seen in my nearly 20 years of 3.0/3.5 gaming anyone care about lost caster levels or optimization the way some people are claiming here. Not a single time.

[Thunder999]

What about balancing the cleric access by limiting the number of spells per day that can come from the cleric list, maybe start with 1 spell of each level and eventually cap out at 3 (one shy of being able to cast a spell on every member of a 4 man party), that way you're never quite as good as an actual cleric at casting cleric spells, but it still vastly expands your spell list.

[GrayDeath]

Lets all calm down, please?

There has been a lot of interesting Info in this thread, and I would prefer it to remain that way without descending into flaming that will likely get the Thread locked (or at the very least will make it less enjoyable and hence less popular overall).


Now summing up, so far the Suggestions seem to be towards either reducing it to at least a 9/10 class and keeping most/all of the CLeric spells it gets, but splitting those over more than the Capstone

or

Reducing it not at all or at WORST to 9/10, but only giving a small amount (say 2 per Level) CLeric Spells in addition, normal Domains, and allow levelup Spells to also come from the Cleric List.


Both Workable as I see it. And noted. Still open for entirely different setups though.


But what about the rest of the Class? Specific Class Features other than Domains/Cleric Sp0ells? Changes to the Chassis? Completely new Ideas?
Archetypes for Prepared/SPontaneous/List casters mayhap?

[AvatarVecna]

I'm not a fan of the fluff limitations or the domains that result from it, nor am I a fan of how the capstone ability has absolutely massive differences in synergy between (for example) warmage and sorcerer. Rulings almost always skew around how balanced you consider the capstone to be, and I think reworking the early parts (the domains) to be more balanced across entries and removing the capstone as it currently exists would allow for making a much better alternative to the DMG's mystic theurge. What I'd do:

1) Remove the alignment requirements, the existing domains, and the SLAs. This makes it no longer so...strongly tied to particular fluff, which maybe you have strong feelings about.

2) Give it anywhere from 6/10 to 10/10 casting, as you prefer for the level of balance you want to strike.

3) At lvl 1, 4, 7, and 10 (or whatever alternate levels you prefer), grant one at-will/continuous SLA of the player's choice, and one domain of the player's choice. The character gains the domain power and automatically adds that domain's spells to their spellbook/spells known/spell list (including in the future whenever they gain access to a new level of casting - a Sorcerer 6/Rainbow Servant 2 that has 10/10 casting would gain access to 4th lvl spells, and thus the 4th lvl domain spell).

This makes the class a much more general theurge, allowing a great deal of power and versatility for any arcane caster without the drawbacks of real theurge classes, or the OPness the original capstone frequently had. It's a much more steady progression.

[NigelWalmsley]

I believe the premise here, as also summarized by Esprit15 and Nifft, is that every casting PrC would have a CL tradeoff. As for why you would do it, it's simple - wizard and sorcerer have pretty much no class features of note past first level (in 3.5, at least).

But that's not really a "why", right? It gets close, but "Wizard doesn't have class features" doesn't inherently imply "casting PrCs should lose progression". To get there you have to be trying to balance "PrC" versus "no PrC". But once you acknowledge that's what's happening, you raise the question of why we want the option that doesn't give you class features to be competitive. Why should "take an option that supports your character concept" be a difficult tradeoff? If you want to wear demons as armor, shouldn't Acolyte of the Skin be a snap pick both flavorfully and mechanically? Why does that need to be a tradeoff?

I assume the argument against that is something about power relative to other PCs, but I think that's a difficult sell given how little power PrCs give relative to everything else that's going on. If you're concerned about the Wizard running roughshod over the Fighter and the Rogue, the thing you need to fix is Planar Binding, not Mage of the Arcane Order.

But you're wrong. As you might notice by reading this thread, plenty of -1 spellcaster level PrCs are considered to be viable optimization choices.

Yes, most people don't optimize very much, and there's enough slack that you can choose weak options and still be effective. That doesn't mean those options are actually balanced, or that people are taking them at the same rate they would if they were balanced.

If you're still confused, what's going on here is that I suggest having more than one PrC, which is actually different from "one PrC for each base class".

That's a distinction without a difference. Maybe you don't want a Ranger-focused Rainbow Servant or whatever. But you were proposing a Rainbow Wizard, Rainbow Sorcerer, and Rainbow Warmage. Which covers all the kinds of caster that might reasonably become Rainbow Servants (prepared, spontaneous, and fixed-list arcane casters).

You're trying to claim that because perfection is impossible, therefore improvement is impossible.

If I thought improvement was impossible, why would I suggest changes? I don't think it's impossible to make things better, I think your proposal is bad, for reasons I have explained in detail to you and others.

Also, you'll note that you don't actually answer the question. You've specifically pulled out a claim that seems pretty obviously true (the choice to be less powerful does not reduce the power of optimized characters), and then disagreed with it without analysis. Once again, it's unclear to me how this is supposed to advance your argument.

The two "different" things stand for each other. There is no dynamic to attack.

Consider a player who is playing a game they expect to end at 13th level. They have created a Beguiler, whose backstory involves being trained by Coatls. Rainbow Servant is, objectively, the best flavor fit for this character. However, they would be dramatically more effective if they chose to become a Shadowcraft Mage, because that class would pay dividends before the campaign ends, and Rainbow Servant would not. Do you not see how that's a problem?

Mono class full casters should be STRONGER than any Full caster that prestiges out. Yeah, mono class is dull, but youre getting power for it. If you care about power. Go to 20 in Wiz/etc. Prestige classes should be about getting unique options you cant get in the base class, and yeah they should be weaker. Wiz 10/PrC 10 should be WEAKER than Wiz 20, but the PrC should make it more unique by its features. I'm not saying the game is like this right now but yeah.

Isn't this just trying to make the Oberoni Fallacy an explicitly enforced part of the game? Asking people to make a tradeoff between power and flavor will just result in characters on average being less interesting and balance on average being worse. If you've got a guy who will play to their concept no matter what, and a guy who will play to power no matter what, the best solution is to minimize tradeoffs between power and concept, not maximize them.

[Esprit15]

Turning this around, why should prestige classes just be “The base class but better”? I think delaying spell progression because you chose to specialize in something besides casting even more spells is a perfectly reasonable trade off. With a Wizard, your spells are your class feature. Nobody whines about Rogues who prestige out not getting Reliable Talent, or Scouts not getting Blindsense if they leave early - that’s just the cost of leaving the class. It’s opportunity cost.

Why should Wizards and Sorcerers and the other mages be so special that they don’t have to even wait one level to still get their class features when they prestige out? There ought to be a reason that some people choose to just be a pure Sorcerer, or Wizard, or Cleric, or hell, even a pure Warmage.

[Thunder999]

Prestige classes should be better because they generally require you to meet prerequisites and because 3.5 base classes are painfully lackiing in class features.

[GrayDeath]

This is not a general Prestige Class Debate Thread.

neither is it a "how do you think Rainbow Servant stands compared to Incantatrix".

Or any other of Optimization Questions.

So please lets get back to the actual Topic of "Making a Better Rainbow Servant Class"/"Writing an Errata that makes the CLass less controversal but still good", ok?

You know, the Questions I as the OP actually asked. ^^

Thanks.

[Esprit15]

Fair, but what unless we actually nail down what is wanted out of a prestige class, or what they should be, we can't actually do much other than offer up ideas, and then remain silent as to what we think of them. Without criticism, there isn't any discussion. I proposed one way to errata it to keep the feel intended, though also matched my balance preferences with spellcasting progression.