Heroes Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves

[Wulf Ratbane]

What, you ignored my entire post the last time this came up?

I would put it no more malicious than "forgot."

Sorry Wulf, I strongly disagree with you. A basic tenet of prestige class design is that you can make the class abilities as powerful as a class ability of a single class character of that level. So, if you are designing a prestige class that has 5th level abilities as a prerequisite, then you can give it a class ability at first level that would normally be reserved for a 6th level ability in a single class.

I'll agree with you here on the merits, but I think we have a divergence here on what PrCs should deliver.

Generally speaking I feel like the first level of a PrC should give you no more or less than the first level of any core class. In other words, in terms of balance, Assassin 1 = Rogue 1, not Rogue 10.

And while I can see the allure of your method, and could even be persuaded to adopt it, I don't think that the majority of PrCs follow that model. They usually start from the bottom again and start stacking, in terms of BAB and saves, spellcasting, etc. It's a cumulative gain, not a big "jump" to where the designer "thinks" the adopting character's power level should be when he picks up the class.

I think obviously you're talking in terms of the rough power of class abilities, not just the raw numbers that define a class, but even here I think PrCs generally start low and build up.

Regardless of which way you slice it, I bet you can choose any 1st level "Prestige Ability X" and match it up against a character, sneaking his way in two levels lower, with "Prestige Ability X" minus one feat (cause he spent it on Skill Focus).

Wulf

 

[Psion]

I would put it no more malicious than "forgot."

Note the smiley. Never said you were malicious. Just jogging your memory.

Generally speaking I feel like the first level of a PrC should give you no more or less than the first level of any core class. In other words, in terms of balance, Assassin 1 = Rogue 1, not Rogue 10.

That may be the way that you feel, but the guidelines on prestige class design differ. I'm not just making this up.

If you design your classes that way, then it's not a problem for your classes. But I doubt many people will be using just your books.

And while I can see the allure of your method, and could even be persuaded to adopt it, I don't think that the majority of PrCs follow that model.

That may be true, but as time goes on, it seems less and less the case. Fewer and fewer prestige classes have spellcasting that start over again at first level, and more and more have continuing progression. People are getting wiser to how the system works together and the sorts of classes people WON'T take. People who do write classes that start spell progression over again write them so that the spells are more powerful than would be available to a first level for a single class character (see the Demonologist in BoVD and Hallowed Mage in BoHM.)

They usually start from the bottom again and start stacking, in terms of BAB and saves, spellcasting, etc.

BAB and saves are not the problem; those are accumulative and not normally affected by this unless the class has a favorable save and BAB configuration for some reason.

The problem is non-acumulate class abilities and spell progressions.

Many PrCs have class abilities that are approximately equal to a level of spell that a spellcaster of the total character level of the minimum PrC character would have. Many of them have MULTIPLE such abilities spread across their levels. Meaning that if you have a class intended for sixth level that you take at fourth, you just aren't getting a jump at 4th level in getting the 6th level ability. You are also getting a jump on your 5th level ability, your 6th level, and so on. That's a lot of mileage out of that feat.

Further, many class abilities and DCs that are based on character level, and abilities become more potent rather quickly.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Many PrCs have class abilities that are approximately equal to a level of spell that a spellcaster of the total character level of the minimum PrC character would have. Many of them have MULTIPLE such abilities spread across their levels. Meaning that if you have a class intended for sixth level that you take at fourth, you just aren't getting a jump at 4th level in getting the 6th level ability. You are also getting a jump on your 5th level ability, your 6th level, and so on. That's a lot of mileage out of that feat.

Again I would say the problem is in designing a PrC that is "intended" for a certain level. I think the class should be balanced internally, not by wildly variable external factors.

I will agree, however, that 5th level or so is a good baseline for the bottom "balance" level. Where it gets tricky is in trying to design specifically for 9th, 10th, etc.

Further, many class abilities and DCs that are based on character level, and abilities become more potent rather quickly.

Actually, wouldn't they be 2 DC's lower, if the character picked up the class two levels early? Less potent than another character two levels higher (and him with an extra Feat, to boot...)

Forgive me if I'm wrong there-- it's Friday, my brain is pretty well switched off...

Wulf

 

[jmucchiello]

Psion, I tried to argue this with Wulf a while back and I've given up. He and I disagree on the fundamental that you espouse: rogue 1 <> assassin 1. I always use ranks in skill as the limiting factor because it is the only way to make many classes able to reach the class. I also believe only one skill (preferably the most available skill) should be the only top skill.

After I have a rough idea of the PrCs abilities I decide what the prerequisites are based on how fast someone could take the class. I know that's the first thing people who "GOTTA HAVE" the class are going to do.

Wulf, how do you know that the prereqs for a PrC are balanced if you do not include level attained along with them? After all, if level 1 of a PrC is no more powerful than a core class, why limit entry to the class at all. Let people take it at level 1.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you use skill ranks to balance a class for, say, a Rogue 5-- does that not mean that the class is imbalanced for a Wiz 10 who takes longer to qualify?

The Virtuoso (S&S) takes this in the opposite direction. They "balanced" the class with bards in mind, but it's clearly broken for certain Sorcerers.

My point is simply that the designer should not have a particular class or character level in mind when he designs the class. It should be inherently balanced; skill ranks should be used to define the skills that a member of the class should have, not as simply a lazy shorthand to pigeon-hole characters of a certain level.

Wulf

 

[jmucchiello]

If you use skill ranks to balance a class for, say, a Rogue 5-- does that not mean that the class is imbalanced for a Wiz 10 who takes longer to qualify?

If I thought it was a class a wizard would want (and I always assume all classes might want all but the narrowest PrCs), it would not be so much easier for the Rogue to reach the class. The IT skill would not be rogue exclusive.

My point is simply that the designer should not have a particular class or character level in mind when he designs the class. It should be inherently balanced; skill ranks should be used to define the skills that a member of the class should have, not as simply a lazy shorthand to pigeon-hole characters of a certain level.

I agree whole-heartedly with the italicized part of what you said. The next three words or character level I disagree with whole-heartedly. If you look at Joe's Book of Enchantment, even the Monk PrC (grants monk abilities along with charm based attacks similar to Stunning fist) does not require you to be a Monk before you take the class (though it sure does help).

How do you give a PrC Spell Resistance if you don't know what level the character should be? Or damage reduction? Or abiility to strike as a +1 weapon? Or any of those abilities that require a certain character level for balance purposes?

In any case, it's not so terrible. I just think it is inconsistent with the rest of the system. It is like a feat that granted a +1 to BAB. (Hey, is that a can of worms?)

 

[HellHound]

I have had criticisms from other designers that the +2 ranks somehow "breaks" the system, especially with regards to prestige class qualifications. I strongly disagree, first on the basis that Prestige Classes should never be "balanced" according to their entry requirements-- at least as far as those requirements are simply used to "defer" entry into the class to a higher level: that's just bad design.

While I like this version of the Skill Focus feat, I have to disagree with Ben on this point.

It is NOT bad design to use minimum ranks to defer the taking of a class to a certain level. That is one of the points of the prerequisites for a prestige class, they determine what level a character has to be to take the class. Plain and simple. More powerful classes have higher requirements, that's not BAD design, that is basic design.

I agree that there should be more method to this than JUST being used to defer entry, but nonetheless calling a majority of prestige class designs bad design is a pretty bold statement against those who wrote them.

On the other hand, these bonus ranks are not enough to break any of the more powerful prestige classes that are balanced by these requirements, as it only speeds entry by two levels and even then at the cost of a feat.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If I thought it was a class a wizard would want (and I always assume all classes might want all but the narrowest PrCs), it would not be so much easier for the Rogue to reach the class. The IT skill would not be rogue exclusive.

Here's my problem with such as thing as an "it" skill, Joe.

One of the premises of PrC design is that it should be open to all characters.

If you pick one "it" skill and set it at a certain number of ranks, you're only thinly disguising the fact that you do, in fact, have a certain class and character level in mind. So why not dispense with the charade?

What's wrong with picking skills, and a certain number of ranks, based on what you feel are best designed to give the character the proper feel for the prestige class?

And then balance the prestige class within itself.

How do you give a PrC Spell Resistance if you don't know what level the character should be? Or damage reduction? Or abiility to strike as a +1 weapon? Or any of those abilities that require a certain character level for balance purposes?

You just do it. If you feel like SR is an appropriate ability for the 1st level of a PrC (and I don't) then you just do it. You could balance this ability if the class is weak in other areas.

EDIT: And as a parting comment to this thread, let me say I don't think there is such a thing as "balancing a class to the entry requirements." You have to assume going in that any character who takes the class is going to meet the requirements-- so where is the balance? Balance the class itself.

Wulf

 

[Psion]

Actually, wouldn't they be 2 DC's lower, if the character picked up the class two levels early?

Huh? How so?

Many class abilities are one the basis of 10+PrC level+ability modifier. If you have a class that you can pick up at 6th level, a 6th level character with 1 level of the PrC has 2 less DC than a character with 3 levels of the PrC. Which means that a character using this feat to enter the class two levels early will have +2 DC compared to an equivalent character level of a character without the feat. I consider that a sufficient boon for a feat all by itself; when you factor in all the other jumps, it's too good, IMO.

 

[Psion]

Psion, I tried to argue this with Wulf a while back and I've given up.

Mother's eyes.

But hope springs eternal. Bruce Cordell defended the psion stridently against acusations of weakness for a long time.

Then he published ITCK and Mindscapes, which brought some much needed revisions to the psion.