Why all casting and manifesting PrCs should fully progress casting/manifesting

[remetagross]

Master of the Secret Sound

I'm not finding that one. Where's it from?

[pabelfly]

I'm not finding that one. Where's it from?

Dragon #297

[RandomPeasant]

Celestial Mystic

Are the Celestial Spells supposed to be insane? Because the class features are nowhere close to what Incantatrix is doing.

Divine Agent

Some mildly accelerated SLAs are not exactly breaking the game. gate is impressive, but extremely constrained.

Eunuch Warlock

Mighty Spells is really a lot worse than Incantatrix metamagic. Greater Spell Focus is pretty good if interpreted favorably. Leadership is probably enough to push this over the top.

Heir of Siberys

This is not remotely close to Incantatrix. Your primary class feature here is a SLA that is roughly 8th level and can be used roughly twice per day. I'm not going to claim it's worse than Archmage, since you can get stuff early or off-list, but it's pretty much just Archmage with lost casting.

Master of the Secret Sound

The overwhelming majority of this is just more uses of spells you could cast anyway. The Sound of Stunning is pretty nice, but generally worse than stun ray, and you can get one use without giving up any casting. The Secret Sound is strong, but it's also an ability you get at 19th or 20th level. Not really comparable to Incantatrix giving you three game-changing abilities and all the feats you needed to enter the class by 10th level.

Master Transmogrifist

This one I think I'd probably give you. But at the same time, it's only broken because it's interacting with the mechanics for shape-changing, and those are incredibly broken. IMO, it's like saying that Malconvoker is Incantatrix-tier because it makes planar binding better. The end result is good, but most of that isn't coming from the class.

Mythic Exemplar

How do you even think this is close? Four dice of sneak attack, some save bonuses, and minor defensive abilities is not competitive with Incantatrix.

Pale Master

Undead Cohort is strong, and the potential for an infinite undead army is powerful as well. But those are abilities you get at 9th and 10th level of the PrC, while the Incantatrix gets its strongest ability at 3rd level.

Recaster

This just does worse metamagic shenanigans than Incantatrix. I would absolutely rather get to make my litany of buff spells Persistent than Quicken three of them. I guess Sudden Metamagic is nice for volume of fire, but Metamagic Spell Trigger is substantially nastier.

Sanctified One

Again, I have no idea how you think this is remotely comparable to Incantatrix. What is the cheese here even supposed to be.

Shaper of Form

The most impressive thing this does, barring some extremely generous readings of the "turn items into other items" abilities, is getting you access to polymorph any object one level early. That spell is totally nuts, but getting it at 14th level instead of 15th level is not exactly Incantatrix-tier potency.

Shapeshifter

I'm too lazy to check that the Wild Shape progression matches up with the Druid, but I assume it does. In any case, this is not remotely comparable to the Incantatrix persisting a pile of buffs, for the same reason Druid is not better than Incantatrix.

Spell Sovereign

Sure, let's assume there's enough you can do to abuse the living spell template to make this good.

Swiftblade

Sure, I'll give you that one. Without caveats, even.

Thrall of Fraz-Ub'luu

The capstone ability of this class is to do a thing that is explicitly worse than wish, at a level where you could normally cast wish. I guess staff mastery lets you do some cute stuff, but there's still significant up-front cost, unless you want to start talking about "partially charges staves".

Thrall of Malcanthet

There are better ways to be a Diplomancer. I guess this is impressive if you can activate Betrayal on all your spells, but that'd take some doing.

Thrall of Zuggtmoy

This is a straight-out comparison to Incantatrix via Spore Mastery. Unfortunately, that caps out at 10 levels worth of metamagic, and Metamagic Effect caps out at significantly more than that. An Incantatrix can even get more levels of metamagic than this without touching Metamagic Effect once they get their second usage of Instant Metamagic.

Vermin Lord

I assume there's some big cheese you can do with Hivemind? Because otherwise I'm not seeing it. And as I've said previously, I just don't buy that something you get at 10th level is as good as Incantatrix, which is good from 3rd level (or 2nd level if you have allies).

Visionary Seeker

Spell Mimic is nice, I guess. You can pull some Blue Mage tricks, but most of the ways to abuse spell emulation don't work here (I guess you might argue it ignores XP costs). And it's not until 12th level you can emulate a spell that's higher level than you could normally cast. But that's unreliable, since you have to see the spells cast. If this is reliable three XP-free castings of limited wish or wish it's pretty good, but it takes a lot more work to get there than Incantatrix takes to be broken, and it happens a lot later.

Witch Hunter

Evil Spell Resistance is no Metamagic Effect.

I see four things here that could be reasonably argued to be comparable, a few more that do abusable things at very high levels, and then a trail of things that give slightly accelerated SLAs that are in no way comparable to Incantatrix. As I expected, we fail to even get to a single dozen.

[Troacctid]

No respect for free wishes. SMH.

[RandomPeasant]

No respect for free wishes. SMH.

No substantive arguments. SMH.

[lylsyly]

And NEVER any substantive agreement either.

Just like the thread this one broke off from, the thread about what WotC considered srandar optimization, and every other thread like it them that has spawed over the years, Do i dare mention the "Are dragonwrought kolbolds true dragon thread?." Like all of them this has also became a discussion of "BALANCE."

Guess what? Even if you only use the PHB Druids are number 1, Wizards and Clerics are tied for #2, Sorcerers come in at #4, Bards at #5, and the rest basically stink!

Is this what WotC intended? I kind of doubt it since every WotC adventure basically assumed a party of 4. Arcane, Divine, Skill Monkey, and Hulk Smash. But the truth is that what WotC created was in fact decidedly unbalanced even with only the PHB. Every splatbook only made the issue worse! WHY? Because throwing spells around is a lot more fun and flashy than just hitting with a sword.

This thread is going to end up just the way all of it's predecessors did on more than just this forum for one simple reason! There are a lot of people that believe if you are NOT playing a fully optimized T1 caster then you are not playing the way WotC intended. And you will never convince them they are wrong.

I have to call BS on that one. If that is what WotC intended then why not write a PHB with only Cleric, Druid, and Wizard as classes? And don't get me wrong, I realize that a Wizard, Cleric, and 2 Druids would be a strong party. But there are people who don't want to keep track of all those spells or all those wildshape forms. Where does that leave them?

I left BG because of this attitude, Min/Max was just as bad after BG passed on to the other side. Enworld wasn't as bad but the attitude was still present.

Balance is actually possible if you can push back against all the people who will scream NOOOO!!! if you touch a T1 class's power.

[/rant]

[icefractal]

Why the heck is Incantatrix being used as a baseline for a balanced full casting PrC? It isn't, at all. It's one of the few that would be well worth losing multiple CLs for.

"Not any better than Incantatrix" isn't saying much.

Re: the OP -
I agree that many casting PrCs are overpriced in terms of lost CLs. But I don't agree that *no* features are worth losing CLs for. There are plenty of abilities out there worth losing 1 CL, and some (like Incantatrix) worth multiple.

Re: lack of "class features" / being "dull" -
Spells *are* a class feature. They're more powerful, more versatile, and more interactive than what most classes get!
If the presence of an empty "Special" column makes you feel bored, that's a personal aesthetic issue rather than a mechanical one.

[RandomPeasant]

WHY? Because throwing spells around is a lot more fun and flashy than just hitting with a sword.

You say this like it's some fundamental fact. But it's not. It's a deeply contingent, and it would be just as easy to make the system work some other way, where martial characters were allowed to do things that were just as flashy as spellcasters. Tome of Battle is a pretty good step in that direction. You just need to tune it up a bit at high levels, add some additional maneuvers for variety, and add some kind of non-combat utility.

There are a lot of people that believe if you are NOT playing a fully optimized T1 caster then you are not playing the way WotC intended.

That would seem to contradict the arguments that people are making, or at least that I am making, in this thread. I don't want to make partial casting classes full casting because I want to play a "full optimized T1 caster". Most of them, even most of the ones that got presented as "Incantatrix-tier", are not competitive with the existing options, let alone better. I want to play a Green Star Adept because it is cool, not because it is mechanically powerful. It is just not cool enough to justify crippling my character. Hell, I would consider "casters use Bard progression, casting PrCs are full progression" to be a better design than the status quo. The question here is not "how good should casters be". It is "how good should a caster who likes the idea of being a jade statue be relative to a regular one", and that question is independent of overall power level concerns.

If that is what WotC intended then why not write a PHB with only Cleric, Druid, and Wizard as classes?

You might as easily ask why write the Cleric, Druid, and Wizard at all if they need to be nerfed to balance the game. I agree that there are changes that should be made to casters, but they are honestly fairly minor. Write form-changing rules that aren't simultaneously overpowered and incredibly tedious to deal with. Hammer minionmancy into something vaguely reasonable. Reign in the ability to take extra actions. Probably do something about metamagic (though to be honest, the correct solution there is more "redesign" than strictly "nerf"). Do that and casters are fine. The thing where a Wizard casts black tentacles to lock down some opponents, or scry to monitor the big bad, or teleport to get the party to the adventure is fine, and I'm tired of people insisting it's some sort of "omnipotence" that warps the game. If you don't want to deal with that sort of thing, E6 is right there.

Balance is actually possible if you can push back against all the people who will scream NOOOO!!! if you touch a T1 class's power.

Didn't really work out for 5e, did it? They nerf Wizards really hard. And yet the debates about game balance for that game are, in the broad strokes, the same as this one. "Wizards have powers that break the plot". "Martials are useless at high levels". At a certain point, the sacred cow that is holding you back is not the people who won't let you nerf Wizards. No one, or at least no one I have encountered, seriously believes that planar binding or polymorph is totally fine as-is. The thing that is holding you back the insistence -- an insistence that is, by the way, entirely unique to D&D -- that we preserve the purely mundane warrior as a high level character. Let's try tackling the problem from that end before we take the nerfing stick to the Wizard again.

Why the heck is Incantatrix being used as a baseline for a balanced full casting PrC?

The argument, as I understand it, is very much the opposite. We can't make casting PrCs full casting, because there are apparently "dozens" of PrCs that would be as powerful as it if they didn't lose casting. When the list of those PrCs was eventually presented, it includes such luminaries as the Mythic Exemplar and Heir of Siberys.

It's one of the few that would be well worth losing multiple CLs for.

Well, yes and no. If your plan is to stack up a bunch of Persistent buffs and burn out whole wands to throw out Maximized Empowered Twinned Admixtured spells, the class could lose quite a few caster levels and be competitive. But those strategies are broken. And they are broken in a way that is very difficult to balance appropriately. Complete Arcane quadruples the damage output from blasting wands. How do you write something that is balanced for both ends of that? How do you write something that is balanced for a gish buff stack that includes wraithstrike and sadism and also one that isn't? You can't. It's the same problem as trying to equalize Green Star Adept with polymorph. The solution to a broken element isn't to have people also take terrible elements. It's to remove the broken element.

Spells *are* a class feature. They're more powerful, more versatile, and more interactive than what most classes get!
If the presence of an empty "Special" column makes you feel bored, that's a personal aesthetic issue rather than a mechanical one.

It's not a question of boredom, it's a question of character customization. I suppose you could make a case that the Sorcerer's spells known provides enough of this, and much weaker one for the Wizard's, but every Cleric (of the same alignment, and barring one spell a day from domains) gets the exact same set of spells at every level. That's boring. It means that there's nothing about the character that makes it yours. The difference between my Cleric that commands an army of undead and launches volleys of horrible curses at his foes and your Cleric who casts spells to enhance his allies is simply how we chose to behave, not anything inherent to the characters.

[icefractal]

Spells are extremely customizable - again, more so than most classes are. And I don't agree with your Cleric point, for two reasons -
1) If it were true, people should be switching over to Favored Soul en-mass because it's more fun, right? But they don't.
2) IME, prepared casters have a standard list and only switch from it when they know about particular circumstances ahead of time. And that standard list varies between characters. Your stats, feats, and gear affect which spells you'll want to prepare.

And I'm not trying to balance against Fighter here, I'm trying to balance against Wizard. Vanilla Wizard 20 is a perfectly good class. It has versatility, it's fun to play, and it can handle challenges of its CR (and quite a bit above, if optimized) well. So, it's fine, it's not underpowered. Therefore, there's no need for Wizard/PrC to be stronger than plain Wizard.

[RandomPeasant]

1) If it were true, people should be switching over to Favored Soul en-mass because it's more fun, right? But they don't.

No, because Favored Soul doesn't let you do anything you can't already do as a Cleric, and makes you less capable of doing many things Clerics can. People don't want "specialization, but your character is worse". They want specialization. When specialization is offered in a way that isn't a clear power downgrade (like choosing Beguiler or Dread Necromancer over Sorcerer), people eagerly take that trade.

[icefractal]

So they're switching to classes that know their entire list. Meaning that every Dread Necromancer has not only the same options per day, but the same options per round. Which according to your prior post, is a bad thing.

[RandomPeasant]

So they're switching to classes that know their entire list. Meaning that every Dread Necromancer has not only the same options per day, but the same options per round. Which according to your prior post, is a bad thing.

No, it's a bad thing that the guy who wants to play a buff bot and the guy who wants to play a necromancer end up on a class with the same capabilities. The people who play Dread Necromancers want to be necromancers, and it is entirely reasonable that they have similar capabilities (though I would not argue with someone who wanted a mechanism to differentiate between concepts like "necromancer who specializes in soul magic" and "necromancer who's really into vampires" and "necromancer who leans into demonology"). If, for some reason, Dread Necromancer was the class you picked for both "leader of an undead army" and "champion of the forest", that would be a problem because it would mean that a bunch of people who wanted to play forest champions had ability sets that were not meaningfully different from the people playing lich-generals. But it isn't, so that's not a problem.

[ATHATH]

I'd hesitate to grant full casting/manifesting, although I could definitely see an argument for shifting some PrCs with 5/10 progressions to 9/10 progressions (with the progression-less level being the first one).

[icefractal]

I mean, if I were actually trying to do an improvement of PrC (a significant task), I'd probably -
1) Eliminate most prerequisites, keeping only those that are essential to the class functioning, plus a simple "Nth Level" requirement. Yes, I know that never explicitly using "Nth Level" as a requirement was a design decision ... it was a bad one.
2) Figure out how many lost levels the class abilities merit (usually 0-2) and front-load those based on the division (ie. -1 at 1st, -2 at 1st/6th, -3 at 1st/4th/7th, etc.)

For instance, Mystic Theurge:
Prerequisites: ability to cast arcane spells, ability to cast divine spells
L1: No CL advancement
L2+: Advance both

But this requires looking at each class individually. I don't think there's any blanket fix that would give very good results.

[Yael]

I'd hesitate to grant full casting/manifesting, although I could definitely see an argument for shifting some PrCs with 5/10 progressions to 9/10 progressions (with the progression-less level being the first one).

I'm on this boat, too. Granting full casting basically gestalt-ishes as PrCs are basically a tax for specialization, that's why they ask for prerrequisites, and their class features deviate from Base Classes'. You can still take a casting PrC, but it may be so niche on what it does that it justifies you deviating from your normal training in pursue of obtaining new abilities.

I'd like to avoid converting every PrC on even more caster powerfuel, as it has been stated multiple times in this thread (and board overall), that casters get the good stuff, all of it, and now making them get even more goodies, whilst not losing anything when branching off into concepts so alien from their usual proficiencies.

9/10-ing 5/10s at 1st level would make up for that change of pace, but not hurt them as much for those who want those 9s earlier (what would T1-T2s do without even more powerful spells, the poor things), as a simple fix for this problem while keeping it fluffy. Although this could come up with some problems where some 10/10s are also alien concepts from standard classes and would make my argument more akin to swiss cheeze, so it could be on a case-by-case basis, and not all 5/10s.

Guys, we should just go <insert your favorite T1 class and pick a sword 20> and call it a day.

This post, Blue stands for sarcasm.

[Telonius]

The spells (and the versatility and power they give) are the heart of the balance problem. It's also a problem that's both completely baked-in to the edition, and generally too huge to solve. Googling some sources on this; it looks like there are somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand spells just for Wizards and Sorcerers (depending on how accurate people's lists are and what sources you count). That's not even counting the Cleric, Druid, or Bard list. "Fix the spells" - or a real, genuine "fix the balance issue" - just isn't going to happen without either editing and re-balancing an absolute mountain of material, or completely rebuilding the magic system from the ground up. Whatever came out at the other end of that, wouldn't be 3.5 as we know it.

How you handle that reality is more of a social problem than a technical problem, and it really depends on the personal preference of everybody in the gaming group. Are you going to go all-in on it, and throw balance out the window? It's a perfectly consistent solution. Have a gentleman's agreement not to overshadow the whole party? Also a perfectly good solution. Houserule to put some guard rails up against the worst offenders (shapechange, free wishes, kobold shenanigans) - or encourage them/discourage less-powerful options? This can also work. Whatever way you choose to deal with it, as long as the group understands it, wants to play that way, and has fun with it, it's a good solution. You achieved what you were trying to achieve.

We can't tell if your group is going to like it or not, but we can analyze what effect a houserule change would have on power. For this one - making all casting PrCs 10/10 casting - it will give casting characters more powerful and versatility, when they already have a whole bunch of both. It will also probably make it more likely that a caster would consider a PrC that currently grants something less than full casting. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to personal preference.

[RandomPeasant]

If you really feel the need to provide trade-offs for casting PrCs, the way to do that is the way the Archmage does it: giving up spell slots. That's absolutely fine, and in most cases it makes more sense than taking away levels of casting. Look at the Seeker of the Misty Isle again. Most of what it gets is already SLAs. 1/week discern location is in no possible sense worth a level of casting (as, even at 20th level, the level of casting gets a slot that could cast it each day and also a 9th level spell slot). But you could imagine someone who thought it was worth a 6th or 7th level spell slot for their character.

I'd like to avoid converting every PrC on even more caster powerfuel, as it has been stated multiple times in this thread (and board overall), that casters get the good stuff, all of it, and now making them get even more goodies, whilst not losing anything when branching off into concepts so alien from their usual proficiencies.

It's been stated, but the follow-up is pretty absent. Making Green Star Adept full casting doesn't make casters better. It makes Green Star Adepts better, but those guys suck and need the help. But the fundamental thing, the thing that is just completely ignored, is that this is not a power question. If you think casters need slower spell progression, fine. Make everyone use the Sorcerer progression. But the underlying logic is the same: having people do cool things is good.

The spells (and the versatility and power they give) are the heart of the balance problem. It's also a problem that's both completely baked-in to the edition, and generally too huge to solve. Googling some sources on this; it looks like there are somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand spells just for Wizards and Sorcerers (depending on how accurate people's lists are and what sources you count).

Sure. There are a lot of spells. But that's really not the problem. The problem isn't that casters know too many spells. If that were true, the gap between Wizards and Sorcerers would be larger. The problem isn't that casters know too wide a variety of spells. If that were true, the gap between Sorcerers and Beguilers would be larger (frankly, the gap is probably in the opposite direction of what it needs to be for this argument to hold water, but that's a whole other thing). The problem isn't that that there are too many spells to choose from. If that were true, spellcasters would be fine in Core. The problem is that there are a limited number of specific spells that are overpowered. It's not a big list, and you can just fix them. Or even ban them. But, again, the problem is absolutely not the Wizard who casts fireball, or even stinking cloud.

it will give casting characters more powerful and versatility

Since you're making this claim too, I'll put it to you as well: what build does this. What is the build you can make with a partial casting PrC that is better than what you can do now?

[Telonius]

Since you're making this claim too, I'll put it to you as well: what build does this. What is the build you can make with a partial casting PrC that is better than what you can do now?

The one that comes to mind for me is the Planeshifter prestige class. (I'd used it in one of the Villainous Competitions a while back). It's 7/10 casting currently. Some of the higher-level abilities are pretty weird. I'm not aware of any other class or ability that gives Planar Area Swap or anything like it. Getting your own demiplane pre-epic is a serious consideration (even if it comes with normal time). Plane Shift at will is another big one. You can probably get it other ways, but if you just get it natively from a Prestige Class ability (with no limits on times per day) there are fewer hoops for you to jump through.

If you're looking for things that make a (generally) single-classed character better, that would tend to be looking for classes that front-load an ability that would make a character generally stronger without sacrificing too much. For a Bard or a Beguiler, Master of Masks becomes a much more appealing one- or two-level dip. Proficiency in everything, constant nondetection, or granted Sneak Attack, with no loss in caster level. Malconvoker would be another example for a single-level dip. Any Good-aligned Cleric (or Wizard who's worried about alignment concerns for whatever reason), who's summoning monsters, suddenly has much more of the summon list open to them.

[RandomPeasant]

The one that comes to mind for me is the Planeshifter prestige class. (I'd used it in one of the Villainous Competitions a while back). It's 7/10 casting currently. Some of the higher-level abilities are pretty weird. I'm not aware of any other class or ability that gives Planar Area Swap or anything like it. Getting your own demiplane pre-epic is a serious consideration (even if it comes with normal time). Plane Shift at will is another big one. You can probably get it other ways, but if you just get it natively from a Prestige Class ability (with no limits on times per day) there are fewer hoops for you to jump through.

Isn't the private demiplane just genesis, but as a one-off? Planar Area Swap is a novel ability, but it's not exactly a broken one. Using it in combat at 18th level seems dicey, and non-combat applications seem mostly cool rather than broken. At-will plane shift at the level where you have gate doesn't seem particularly broken either (and there are ways to emulate that one, if you cheese enough).

For a Bard or a Beguiler, Master of Masks becomes a much more appealing one- or two-level dip. Proficiency in everything, constant nondetection, or granted Sneak Attack, with no loss in caster level.

None of those are exactly game-breaking. nondetection is an hour/level spell normally, so it's not much trouble for a Beguiler to have it up most of the time even at that level, and you can do it all day pretty easily by 12th level. The proficiencies or sneak attack just don't seem that appealing for someone with half BAB and no blasting or gish-oriented spells. It's probably an upgrade over straight Bard, but the Bard builds that are effective are ones where it wouldn't be a straight upgrade, even at full casting progression.

Malconvoker would be another example for a single-level dip. Any Good-aligned Cleric (or Wizard who's worried about alignment concerns for whatever reason), who's summoning monsters, suddenly has much more of the summon list open to them.

A Cleric can achieve the same effect by being Neutral. I suppose you might really want to worship a specific god and also have summons that are from an alignment opposite that god, but is that really something that needs to have a caster level taken off to balance it?

[Quertus]

The main thing is that prestige classes need to have a cost.

I would start out by challenging this assumption.

I also question this assumption, but from a completely different angle. I think that every prerequisite of a prestige class should not be considered a "cost" by one who actually is going that route.

That is, if I want to be a... police officer, I should know something about the law, and be proficient in firearms. If I want to be a Doctor, I should have some knowledge of medicine and diagnosis or something. If I want to be a ninja, I should know some stealth. They shouldn't be "Costs", they should be the logical prerequisites of being that thing.

[Thurbane]

Master of the Secret Sound

If that one isn't already in the silly PrC name thread, it should be...

Sounds like a PrC dedicated to unlocking the awesome power of arm-farts!

[sleepyphoenixx]

A Cleric can achieve the same effect by being Neutral. I suppose you might really want to worship a specific god and also have summons that are from an alignment opposite that god, but is that really something that needs to have a caster level taken off to balance it?

There are a lot more reasons for wanting to be good as a cleric. Sanctified spells which often only work for good casters/targets like Luminous Armor, PrCs that require good alignment like Sacred Exorcist, feats like Ancestral Relic and so on. Alignment affects a lot more than just what god you can worship.

And Malconvoker is actually one of the few prestige classes where i think the loss of casting progression is entirely justified.
Not just because of the greater variety in summons (which adds a lot of variety in SLAs to Summon Monster so it's hardly worthless) but also because it doubles your summons at level 5.
That's worth losing 1 level of casting.

You could argue that it should lose casting at level 5 then instead of 1, but it's not unbalanced to lose a level of casting for what the class as a whole gives you.

The main thing is that prestige classes need to have a cost. There has to be a reason why some people would stick to being just a wizard or just a druid or even just a fighter (for all of those "special" children out there). A wizard prestige class must never be "exactly the same as a wizard but better" or else there is no reason for the wizard class to exist after the 5 levels needed to enter the prestige class.

There also has to be a reason to enter a prestige class. If you're dumping the core feature of your class for it (as you said, wizards don't really get anything else) you expect something roughly equivalent in exchange. In practice you mostly get useless flavor abilities while the PrCs with really powerful abilities give full or near-full progression.

The way to make Wizard 20 attractive isn't to make PrC's suck, it's giving wizards class features.
UA gave it a try, but their options are usually too front-loaded or too weak to really fulfill that purpose. The Conjurer and Illusionist variants are definitely the right direction though.

[Endarire]

As I mentioned elsewhere...

To add to balancing frustration is the notion - at least in my experience - that games have normally lasted from levels 1 to about 8, rarely hitting double digits. In this context, Incantatrix is oddly balanced because one of its most significant abilities, Metamagic Effect, acts as a low level capstone and something that barely fits inside an E8 game.

Considering how spiffy the Incantatrix class features are, one could spread out most or all of these class features, maybe tweak some, and just rebrand "Incantatrix" as "(Specialty) Wizard" or "Sorcerer" as a 20 level base class and people would still take it.

------

I agree with sleepy that most full casters have too few class features aside from spellcasting to meaningfully give up as a mechanical balance mechanism regarding PrCs. I also agree that giving full casters many meaningful class features in addition to casting - regardless of mechanical balance - would make the notion of multiclassing into PrCs more questionable. (Casting as a class feature is simply too important and of variable worth to try to make it a constant like the speed of light.) Losing casting for any reason is like taking a level adjustment you can't - by 3.5 RAW at least - normally simply undo by leveling a few times.

Consider the current setup for Cleric/Sor/Wiz: The first X levels (usually 5 or 6) are the 'apprenticeship' where class features are sparse. After that, then based on their build, they qualify by RAW for Y PrCs to give them class features they want in addition to casting. Want to be a summoning-focused character once your apprentice levels are done? Go Master Conjurer, Malconvoker, or some other similar class. Want to be a healing-focused caster once your apprentice levels are done? Radiant Servant and Combat Medic are likely your go-to picks.

------

Among other PrCs bolstered by full casting/manifesting, "Dragon" Magazine's Mind Mage is one that should have been made full. I don't claim its power levels alone will rival Incantatrix. (Thrallherd already does, and giving it full manifesting just means .)

------

I am a fan of Bards, but only partially for their casting. (I'm glad their level 9 spell progression from Sublime Chord that earned them the native level 9 casting ability in D&D 5e, but that's an aside.) For me, one of a 3.5 Bard's main metrics of success is Inspire Courage optimization.

------

One of the matters we've been discussing has been 'theory' versus 'implementation.' In theory, giving more power (class features) to full casters may detract from the rest of the party. Maybe. But only maybe. I agree with the notion of giving more classes full casting/manifesting so that people can play these interesting character concepts, regardless of how powerful they are compared to the current 3.5 Incantatrix.

------

As GM, one of my players loved Mindbender and I agreed to let her play it with full casting. Our game never lasted long enough for that to matter, but she was relieved to have that option.

As GM for another game, one of my players played a Paladin who went Shining Blade of Heironeous and complained at the weakness of the class compared to Paladin.

------

I agree that balance is subjective, and a buncha WotC and Paizo employees made stuff that likely appealed to them, their groups, or/and their bosses and didn't focus on making and sticking to any one specific metric. Perhaps it's like saying, "3.x Monks and Paladins should not be allowed to freely multiclass," before "Pathfinder Monks and Paladins have never known this burden of their 3.x ancestors." Perhaps it's also like saying, "Sorry about the weakness of the martial classes in 3.5's core: Let's make it up to you with Tome of Battle."

------

As for the roles of PrCs and certain options in games, some options are simply upgrades to existing ones. I remind you of the real world Battle of Agincourt where England dominated its competition because of heavy use of ranged weaponry, the English Longbow in this case. The notion of "kill 'em before they can come close enough to kill us" has been in effect for centuries in the real world and maybe even longer!

I'm certain that, in-universe, D&D characters would thoroughly understand the importance of this sort of tactic - caster or not - and casters would strive to become the best casters they could be also due to the in-universe possibility (from unlikely to certain depending on the context) that delaying their casting ability for any reason would be fatal.

But I know we're playing a game here were players may think and act otherwise.

------

There are players who play for image or flavor. There are players who play for power. Sometimes, these are the same people!

For those who believe there is or should be a notable difference between power and flavor, I remind you that power is a flavor and it is delicious!

As I learned from Treantmonk, a powerful character can purposely play weaker than normal to disguise his full abilities and better fit in with others while still going (nearly) full power on threats that warrant such power. (See Gandalf from Lord of the Rings as a spiffy example.) In contrast, a weak character's best chance of fighting above his power grade is to be extremely tactical and get lucky which are things that the pulling punches character can also do to some extent.

------

Regarding losing spells a la Archmage, I have mixed feelings regarding this. Since I already qualify for X class, why must I pay again to get Y feature? (I understand the designer's intent was to make Archmage a significant cost, significant return option for core arcane casters while Hierophant was a low cost, moderate return option for divine casters.) I also understand that sometimes the trade is worthwhile, and I have played at least 1 caster (a Wizard) who went Archmage for its high-end class features despite the costs.

------

Here's another argument I've not seen others bring up often: If you're playing with a caster and you aren't that caster, I strongly suspect you want them to be the best they can be within the context of this game. It's easier to succeed as a group when the group is strong, and every group is made of individual members.

For example, in a 3.5/PF game where the GM enjoyed throwing us against a variety of difficult boss fights, I was displeased when I learned the party's Druid dipped an Oracle level for 'flavor' purposes, and the party's Cleric dipped Paladin for similar reasons.

Then again, this was also the game where I went Wizard and dipped Swordsage and later went Jade Phoenix Mage because I was tired of needing to use a spell slot to be effective, and this is also where I later felt displeased at my decision for being a spell level behind what I would have been as a full Wizard.

------

Finally for the moment, we have the benefit of about 20 years of hindsight regarding D&D 3.x and Pathfinder 1e. Many on the dev teams for these games had much less - or even 0 - hindsight. The fact that we're arguing over what should have (not) happened many years ago means that they did enough right stuff for us to play and enjoy the game and enjoy discussing the game even if we aren't playing it! I know there are things we wanted to have happen differently in time for them to be canon mechanically in their editions, but we're still free willed beings with the ability to change things for us if we're GMing and petition for said changes if we aren't.

Thankee!

[RandomPeasant]

And Malconvoker is actually one of the few prestige classes where i think the loss of casting progression is entirely justified.
Not just because of the greater variety in summons (which adds a lot of variety in SLAs to Summon Monster so it's hardly worthless) but also because it doubles your summons at level 5.
That's worth losing 1 level of casting.

You know what else doubles your summons? Casting a higher level summoning spell and choosing "1d3 off previous list", which the non-Malconvoker will be able to do half the time, in addition to being better in every round in which he does not cast a summoning spell.

There are players who play for image or flavor. There are players who play for power. Sometimes, these are the same people!

I would say that the best model is that a player has a power preference and a flavor preference, then picks some concept where they intersect. And this means that you can lower observed power levels by increasing the power of specific options. If I really like Bear Warrior and Incantatrix, but the lowest power level I'll accept is higher than Bear Warrior, you can reduce the power level of the character I play by buffing Bear Warrior.

[Gruftzwerg]

I would say that the best model is that a player has a power preference and a flavor preference, then picks some concept where they intersect. And this means that you can lower observed power levels by increasing the power of specific options. If I really like Bear Warrior and Incantatrix, but the lowest power level I'll accept is higher than Bear Warrior, you can reduce the power level of the character I play by buffing Bear Warrior.

The best model imho is that the table first discusses the aimed optimization and power lvl of the upcoming campaign. And the DM has the last word here. Because he needs the System Mastery to check for legal builds/interactions and needs to come up with possible encounters and balanced encounters (for the entire group).

And System Mastery for high lvl campaigns with a high optimization lvl are a problem for most DM I know. And from those who say "it is not problem, play what you want", most of em just are unaware of the problems and throw in a bunch of unexpected houserules (from the PCs point of view) and think it is fine. The problem with these unexpected houserules is that this might break your build. I've seen this happening twice to other PCs, both times the player got mad/bored about this and rerolled their chars due to this. Very annoying. Thus you want a DM who can handle these things or who will tell you the houserules to expect beforehand (because he has the System Mastery to at least know where he relies on houserules for a balanced game in his opinion)

From 20years of game xp I know sole 1 other person who I think might be able to handle a high lvl highly optimized campaign the right way. And this from roughly about ~100 people I played with over the years.

And all the time you are assuming that everybody wants to play at T1 lvl. Do you know that some tables just ban full casting progression for balancing purposes? And here you are ignoring that other people just might have other feelings towards highly optimized builds.

As said, if everybody wants to play at high lvl of optimization and the DM is willing and capable of handling it, fine.
But you get a strict NO if you demand this for every table. If you sole want to play at that high tier optimization lvl, than just seek out people with the same mindset. It's that easy. No reason to demand this for everybody.

[RandomPeasant]

For the last time: there is no world in which Green Star Adept, even full casting Green Star Adept, is a "highly optimized build". People are not asking for the power level of casters to be raised. Multiple people, including you, have tried and failed to demonstrate that this change does that. What it does is equalize the power level between casters who like the idea of playing a generalist mage who is a member of a society of mages (Mage of the Arcane Order) and casters who like the idea of playing a dude who wears a demon (Acolyte of the Skin). You can tune the power level of casters to whatever you want and it is completely irrelevant to the question in this thread. If you think that we need to nerf things all the way down to feather fall because otherwise casters are "omnipotent", no one is going to stop you. But the game is a better game if the choice between Mindbender and Master Specialist is a fair one for the aspiring enchanter, regardless of how powerful that enchanter ends up being overall.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You know what else doubles your summons? Casting a higher level summoning spell and choosing "1d3 off previous list", which the non-Malconvoker will be able to do half the time, in addition to being better in every round in which he does not cast a summoning spell.

And half the time he gets two minions from his highest level slot where a different class only gets one.
Yes, you're losing general caster power for your summoning specialization.
That's a valid price for specialization as long as said specialization is powerful enough to be worth it, and i think Malconvoker qualifies.

If you don't want to be a specialized summoner don't be a Malconvoker.

[Endarire]

For a simple example, imagine every caster level loss like you as a player permanently losing a body part. What do you get in exchange for it in the short and long term? And also, what body part do you lose?

For example, if going Incantatrix3 (but not 1 or 2) requires losing a caster level with no rules legal way to get it back, would it be worthwhile? Quite plausibly. For another example, if losing your least favorite finger meant you were paid $1 billion US, would it be worthwhile? The answer is the same.

In contrast, is going Spellsword worth losing caster levels over, even as a gish? Probably not, just like losing my least favorite finger for $100,000 or less would probably not be worthwhile.

@Gruftzwerg: Maybe we're misunderstanding you here, but if you were to build a full caster or manifester for a game that ran ECL 1 to 20 as part of a party, what would you choose and why? The same goes for building a casting-based or manifesting-based gish.

To clarify, I've already expressed my preference toward a high casting ability, even on a gish, with a build such as Gray Elf Barbarian1 (Whirling Frenzy & Pounce)/Wizard5 (Conjurer)/Incantatrix10/Full CastingX for a gish due to pounce and high casting. Persistent Spell for alter self, wraithstrike, and various other buffs makes this build able to hit things despite it having low base HP and BAB.

For a full caster, that depends on my mood, but a 'simple' Sor6/Incantatrix10/full castingX is a strong baseline as a Sor.

Thankee!

[Quertus]

For the last time: there is no world in which Green Star Adept, even full casting Green Star Adept, is a "highly optimized build". People are not asking for the power level of casters to be raised. Multiple people, including you, have tried and failed to demonstrate that this change does that. What it does is equalize the power level between casters who like the idea of playing a generalist mage who is a member of a society of mages (Mage of the Arcane Order) and casters who like the idea of playing a dude who wears a demon (Acolyte of the Skin). You can tune the power level of casters to whatever you want and it is completely irrelevant to the question in this thread. If you think that we need to nerf things all the way down to feather fall because otherwise casters are "omnipotent", no one is going to stop you. But the game is a better game if the choice between Mindbender and Master Specialist is a fair one for the aspiring enchanter, regardless of how powerful that enchanter ends up being overall.

{Scrubbed}

Mind you, I don't agree that all prestige classes aren't "worth" caster level loss, or that it isn't possible to create more such prestige classes (in point of fact, I experimented with doing just that, with trying to get my GM to let me use homebrew prestige classes that lost caster levels, in order to test my game balance ideas. The *timing* of the level loss relative to the feature gain was very important, something some of the GMs couldn't understand).

But I do agree that most comments that aren't comparing Wizard 1 to Wizard 2 are rather missing the point.

Of course, at the risk of accusations of missing the point myself, I'll only slightly flippantly ask whether perhaps the point we're missing is that, to optimize a Wizard, you're *supposed* to write "Wizard 20" on your character sheet, whereas to optimize a Fighter, you're *supposed* to have to write 30 lines of pseudocode just to explain your classes?

Or that one is *meant* to start at the bottom, and work its way up, while the other is *meant* to start at the top, and work its way down, until party balance is achieved? That seeking "flavor" and seeking "balance" were meant to go hand in hand? And that, therefore, talk of making Prestige Classes "balanced" with the core class is, in fact, making the game harder for individual tables to use to achieve balance?

Would you say that, at least looked at in that light, such statements comparing full builds of Wizard #1 to Fighter #1 could have merit in a conversation about whether casting prestige classes should all (or most all) be bumped to full casting?

[Endarire]

Quertus:
I think you were acting facetiously, and thanks for the thoughts about the different starting points or Wiz and Fighter, but my opinion regarding full casting/manifesting and PrCs still stands because the baseline of power for every Wizard over 20 levels is Wizard20, and if someone can willingly choose options that either give full casting and extras or don't give full casting yet give something, the options are heavily in favor of more goodies, even if the caster level loss is eventually worthwhile, in large part due to fear of loss and the habituation of getting X casting ability progression per level or Y time.

To put things in perspective, when I first read the 3.0 DMG over 20 years ago, I noticed this "Loremaster" class. I didn't understand how the 3.0 game mechanics worked for PrCs and casting, but I recall thinking to myself, "Why would anyone take this instead of full Wizard?" What I would later understand is that Loremaster granted its benefits in addition to full casting because the benefits were weak on their own and intended to be granted in addition to full casting.

"Balance" is nebulous and subjective. Trying to balance for different criteria - flavor/image and power - will end up problematic because one will win. For example, StarCraft was balanced for its mechanics, but not for its image. As a game designer, how can I determine what audiences think is the most nifty based on image among a buncha bugs (Zerg), Predators (Protoss), and rebranded 40K soldiers (Terran)?

But as for playing a martial character, non-casters generally benefit more from level 2 from open multiclassing since martial classes are often front-loaded, and the default 3.5 favored class rules favor characters taking at most 2 levels from any non-PrC. The Tome of Battle was meant to fix much of this problem and did, but multiclassing is still encouraged.

Community-wide, we may just need to agree to disagree on the value of a caster level and its worth as well as under what mechanical circumstances losing one (or more!) would be worthwhile.