[Merged]3.5e Official DMG PrC List and Psion's "next trick" thread

[Merlion]

Well some of the caster combinations really aren't viable right now, especially as split level. A sorcerer wizard is an excellent example of this. I think they've gone too far though in the case of the Arcane Trickster and the Mystic Theurge. The Eldritch Knight (Spellsword) doesn't boast the same level of synergy and I think is a better example how this could be done. That said, since they are doing a revision I think it was an extremely poor choice to implement this through the use of PrC's. They've acknowedged that the flaw lies within the multiclassing system, so why aren't they addressing the problem at its root. As it stands, with these PrC's available you won't be seeing any straight rogue/wizards or divine/arcane casters they'll all be Arcane Tricksters and Mystic Theurges. It's a bandaid fix that doesn't address the underlying problem and it is too narrow in its focus (i.e. why should a wizard/rogue, be so much better than a cleric/rogue, or a cleric/sorcerer than a wizard/sorcerer).

I think the reason they dont go after the "root" of the problem is 2 things...one re doing the multiclass rules entirly is to big...this is a revision not a new edition. Next...how exactly else would they "fix" it? how else would you allow someone mutliclassing 2 spellcasting classes not to lose massive amounts of spells from one or both of them? How do you allow a spellcasting class to mutliclass with a nonspellcasting class consistently and not lose massive amounts of power in one or the other? I think the concept of this solution is pretty good...and the exectution of the Theurge in particular we CAN NOT KNOW since its not been played by any of us. And yes the focus is a little narrow but really one could easily enough tweak the Arcane Trickster into the Divine Trickster etc...if they dont do it first.
Now as for the whole no ones going to play a single class rogue or wizard or cleric anymore there all going to be Theurges or Tricksters...I'm sorry and I mean no offense but I just find that silly...and also a little annoying because it seems to reflect how most people on thease boards think...if anything is powerful everyone is going to play it all the time, and it will choke off other options. this just isnt true in my experience. I'm sure some people do play that way...and thats fine for them...but as I've said before if you dont like that style of play, its up to you to find a group who's style of play you like not up to the designers to make it impossible to do the things you dont like.
What about character concept and roleplaying? The only people who are going to play rogue/wizards cleric/wizards or whatever else are those who WANT TO PLAY THOSE CHARACTERS. If I want to play a straight rogue I am not neccsarily going to go off into another class(wizard or sorcerer) just to take Arcane Trickster unless that is the kind of character I want him to be. And a lot of people who do make use of thease prestige classes might not be doing it for power reasons...they might take Theurge because they just love the idea of a cleric/mage but you cant really get anything close to the real effect of either through regular multiclassing.
And my 2 coppers on the Arcane Trickster...I played in a campaign with one for some time(my character and his were brothers) and he was not drasticaly more powerful then my character(Air Savant) or the Elven Cleric/Holy Liberator, or the warriors or anyone else.

 

[Morgenstern]

My only concern is that the list is so spellcaster heavy. I thought it a little over the top that 7 out of 11 D&D core classes are casters. Is there really such a lack of non-magical archetypes worth developing? Is it really necesary to have 7 different ways to throw spells? Or is it that there is a reluctance to create classes with a wide variety of abilites rather than a spell list. Even the official assassin is a spell caster- not because this makes one iota of sense based on the fantasy archetype, but rather becase seemingly the only way to get decent versatility of abilites is by having a spell list... What I see as a weakness in design (fear of leting classes have abilties, tricks, shticks, whatever) and instead falling back on spell lists every time you want a class to have more than one new option per level, is now being replicated and enshrined in the prestige classes also...

 

[F5]

How much will they change?

It's been said in a number of places that they plan on putting in "revised" versions of the Arcane Trickster, and Spellsword/Eldritch Knight. I'm wondering how MUCH they're planning on "revising" them.

If they give the Eldritch Knight anything like full caster level progression, as per the Mystic Theurge, I shudder to imagine the firestorm on the messageboards that will result...

But, seriously, how much do you all suspect the PrCs will change?

 

[bmcdaniel]

ince they are doing a revision I think it was an extremely poor choice to implement this through the use of PrC's. They've acknowedged that the flaw lies within the multiclassing system, so why aren't they addressing the problem at its root. ... It's a bandaid fix that doesn't address the underlying problem and it is too narrow in its focus (i.e. why should a wizard/rogue, be so much better than a cleric/rogue, or a cleric/sorcerer than a wizard/sorcerer).

Oni-

I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure there is a better way to implement multi-classing that makes some of these combinations powerful enough to be viable, but doesn't require a virtual rewrite of the class/level/xp system in 3e. Remember that backwards compatibility was a design goal of 3.5e.

Maybe it would be helpful if you sketched some ideas about how you think multiclassing can be fixed.

BTW, one advantage of a "band-aid" approach is that it is easier to disallow thematically inappropriate combinations on a campaign-by-campaign basis. For example, in my campaign world divine magic users and arcane magic users view the world fundamentally differently; I can simulate this by disallowing the mystic theurege, but still allow wizard/clerics, who however are a suboptimal class. This would be harder if a vaible wizard/class multiclass combo was built deeply into the system instead of being an optional feature, aka band-aid.

BMM

 

[Oni]

I think the reason they dont go after the "root" of the problem is 2 things...one re doing the multiclass rules entirly is to big...this is a revision not a new edition.

My personal view is that the changes are already fairly significant for a revision, and they're being a bit wishy washy, can't quite decide which it is and I think thats something that will have an ill effect. But as for the revising the multiclassing rules, revision doesn't necessarily mean extreme changes.

Next...how exactly else would they "fix" it? how else would you allow someone mutliclassing 2 spellcasting classes not to lose massive amounts of spells from one or both of them? How do you allow a spellcasting class to mutliclass with a nonspellcasting class consistently and not lose massive amounts of power in one or the other?

One very simple solution would be to simply allow character level to act as caster level does now (i.e. duration of spells, ability to punch through SR et c. goes up, but new spells are not gained). 3e was playtested quite hardily in it's inception and so I think it is reasonable to say while multiclassing may leave something to be desired at times, that the playtesters didn't find it so weak as to be completely unusable, so it really should only need a minor tweak.

I think the concept of this solution is pretty good...and the exectution of the Theurge in particular we CAN NOT KNOW since its not been played by any of us.

As for the quality of the concept of this solution I'm afraid I'll simply have to disagree. You like it, I don't, there isn't much to argue there. However I think it unreasonable to say that a PrC cannot be assessed without playtesting. Yes playtesting is useful and can provide a great amount of information, but it isn't the end all be all. Let us consider this logically for a moment. If we set a wizard/cleric down next to a Mystic Theurge, one is clearly more powerful than the other. This tells us that at least one of these two options is unbalanced. If we look at it from a 3e standpoint, according to the playtesting results of 3e the MT is broken as the multiclassing rules were found fine. If we look at it from the 3.5 perspective it's a little more muddy, but according to Andy Collins and many other people, myself included, then the multiclass rules are found wanting and so the wizard/cleric is out of balance. So have two clear things though, the MT is more powerful, and the wizard/cleric is weaker because of the multiclassing system. Next let's take a 17th level wizard, and a 20th level wizard and put them next to each other and assume equal equipment as equipment makes up a large portion of the level differences between classes. I don't think you'll find the difference in powerlevel to be all that drastic. Now take that 17th level wizard and give him 13 free cleric levels, huge difference. Is a three level gap worth 13 levels in another class? Sure this is a simple analysis, but there are things you can see without playtesting. Personally this class sets off alarm bells and I would not be inclined to allow it without seeing it in action first. Let me put it in simpler terms, if a PrC gave full BAB, all good saves and a feat every other level, would you have to wait until it was playtested to see if it was balanced?

And yes the focus is a little narrow but really one could easily enough tweak the Arcane Trickster into the Divine Trickster etc...if they dont do it first.

Yes I could just make those changes, but I don't think I should have too, when it could have been done better. They're the professionals, the should be making the rules as close to perfect as they possible can right out of the box. I shouldn't want to immediately start making little changes.

Now as for the whole no ones going to play a single class rogue or wizard or cleric anymore there all going to be Theurges or Tricksters...I'm sorry and I mean no offense but I just find that silly...and also a little annoying because it seems to reflect how most people on thease boards think...if anything is powerful everyone is going to play it all the time, and it will choke off other options. this just isnt true in my experience. I'm sure some people do play that way...and thats fine for them...but as I've said before if you dont like that style of play, its up to you to find a group who's style of play you like not up to the designers to make it impossible to do the things you dont like.
What about character concept and roleplaying? The only people who are going to play rogue/wizards cleric/wizards or whatever else are those who WANT TO PLAY THOSE CHARACTERS. If I want to play a straight rogue I am not neccsarily going to go off into another class(wizard or sorcerer) just to take Arcane Trickster unless that is the kind of character I want him to be. And a lot of people who do make use of thease prestige classes might not be doing it for power reasons...they might take Theurge because they just love the idea of a cleric/mage but you cant really get anything close to the real effect of either through regular multiclassing.

First off, you misunderstand me, note I didn't say anything about straight class's deviating to pick up the PrC's what I said is that Multiclass wizard/rogues and the like are going to be passed over in favor of the Arcane Trickster and the like. Concept and roleplaying are all well in good, but my personal view is that game designers have a responsibility to create a good of a game as they can before they release it to the public, at least if they want my money. It if flawed game design that one option should be drastically more appealling than another without good reason. Dnd is a game about balance and right now it's looking mighty out of whack. Ultimately you come back to what I've said before, the multiclass rules need a fix, so that we don't have to have a bandaid like the MT to do an interesting concept that should be supported by the base rules.

And my 2 coppers on the Arcane Trickster...I played in a campaign with one for some time(my character and his were brothers) and he was not drasticaly more powerful then my character(Air Savant) or the Elven Cleric/Holy Liberator, or the warriors or anyone else.

Well I don't really have anything to add, your experiences is your experience, I just include the last portion of your statements for the sake of completeness.

 

[Nightfall]

Oni, I do agree, Archmage needs a fix (maybe like +1 at odd levels and only +1 to Spell power.) If they do that I'm good. I like the CONCEPT of Archmage, but the 3.0 version leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

couple additional notes.

Assassin: Evil is not mentioned in the short descriptor, maybe they took out the lame evil requirement, and acceoted that an assassins skills can be sued in other ways, andor virtually identical training could come from a spy organizaiton and not a assassin org.

Summoner: forgot the name but the divine fixation sucks butt, what arcane people can't summon. This goes along with the arcane trickster, not ahving a divine counterpart. How freakin hard would it be to just say cast 2nd level spells, not 2nd level arcane just 2nd level.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Is there really such a lack of non-magical archetypes worth developing?

There are lots of fighter prestige classes - ranger, paladin

Seriously, those two classes are so specialized they might as well be prestige classes.

 

[EricNoah]

Jester47 -- as to your prediction about prestige classes... I did a search on your nickname and the word predict* and here's what I got...

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44310&highlight=predict*

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44310&highlight=predict*

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40388&highlight=predict*

here's your nickname plus the word guess (only one result I thought might be relevant).

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37873&highlight=guess*


Gimme more keywords and I'll keep searching...

 

[Merlion]

My personal view is that the changes are already fairly significant for a revision, and they're being a bit wishy washy, can't quite decide which it is and I think thats something that will have an ill effect. But as for the revising the multiclassing rules, revision doesn't necessarily mean extreme changes.



One very simple solution would be to simply allow character level to act as caster level does now (i.e. duration of spells, ability to punch through SR et c. goes up, but new spells are not gained). 3e was playtested quite hardily in it's inception and so I think it is reasonable to say while multiclassing may leave something to be desired at times, that the playtesters didn't find it so weak as to be completely unusable, so it really should only need a minor tweak.



As for the quality of the concept of this solution I'm afraid I'll simply have to disagree. You like it, I don't, there isn't much to argue there. However I think it unreasonable to say that a PrC cannot be assessed without playtesting. Yes playtesting is useful and can provide a great amount of information, but it isn't the end all be all. Let us consider this logically for a moment. If we set a wizard/cleric down next to a Mystic Theurge, one is clearly more powerful than the other. This tells us that at least one of these two options is unbalanced. If we look at it from a 3e standpoint, according to the playtesting results of 3e the MT is broken as the multiclassing rules were found fine. If we look at it from the 3.5 perspective it's a little more muddy, but according to Andy Collins and many other people, myself included, then the multiclass rules are found wanting and so the wizard/cleric is out of balance. So have two clear things though, the MT is more powerful, and the wizard/cleric is weaker because of the multiclassing system. Next let's take a 17th level wizard, and a 20th level wizard and put them next to each other and assume equal equipment as equipment makes up a large portion of the level differences between classes. I don't think you'll find the difference in powerlevel to be all that drastic. Now take that 17th level wizard and give him 13 free cleric levels, huge difference. Is a three level gap worth 13 levels in another class? Sure this is a simple analysis, but there are things you can see without playtesting. Personally this class sets off alarm bells and I would not be inclined to allow it without seeing it in action first. Let me put it in simpler terms, if a PrC gave full BAB, all good saves and a feat every other level, would you have to wait until it was playtested to see if it was balanced?



Yes I could just make those changes, but I don't think I should have too, when it could have been done better. They're the professionals, the should be making the rules as close to perfect as they possible can right out of the box. I shouldn't want to immediately start making little changes.




First off, you misunderstand me, note I didn't say anything about straight class's deviating to pick up the PrC's what I said is that Multiclass wizard/rogues and the like are going to be passed over in favor of the Arcane Trickster and the like. Concept and roleplaying are all well in good, but my personal view is that game designers have a responsibility to create a good of a game as they can before they release it to the public, at least if they want my money. It if flawed game design that one option should be drastically more appealling than another without good reason. Dnd is a game about balance and right now it's looking mighty out of whack. Ultimately you come back to what I've said before, the multiclass rules need a fix, so that we don't have to have a bandaid like the MT to do an interesting concept that should be supported by the base rules.



Well I don't really have anything to add, your experiences is your experience, I just include the last portion of your statements for the sake of completeness.

Well first let me say, Oni, that I've read a lot of your posts and generaly tend to agree with your points overall. Nothing I said was meant to be remotely offensive.
Now I think personaly that the real issue is when it comes right down to it "game balance" is largely a matter of opnion and taste. almost everything in this game is. thats why I get annoyed some times when people begin to hurl accusations of "bad game design". the people who design this game are only human...and I think they realize that almost everything having to do with it is indeed a matter of taste...and therefore they cant even begin to please everyone with everything. Thats why you still have to make little changes as well. everything they do is never going to fit everyones desires indeed most of what they do is unlikely to...and even most things fitting most people is hard to maintain.
My own deepest personal opnion on the mystic theurge...although I know it goes over into the realm of"thats not DnD anymore" is this: they should simply remove the distinction between Arcane and Divine magic, and just have Magic. Although upon consideration that is almost what they have done with the MT....such characters are liable to feel like mages who can heal if I'm not way off.
Your right about playtesting. you can tell a lot about a class or spell or whatever just from viewing the stats. I just dont think final judgement on any level should generaly be passed without more info. especialy with anything having to do with the revision..its not just about passing judgement on something without playtesting its about passing judgement on a set of revised rules before they are even published.
As far as fixing the multiclassing rules well me personaly I have 2 problems with he caster level as character level thing. One it doesnt make sense to me. if I'm a fighter/wizard why should my fighter levels improve my ability to wield magic in any way? To, it doesnt fix the biggest part of the problem, for me. you still dont gain new spells or spell levels.
Also I dont really entertain generaly comparisions between base and prestige classes in terms of balance/atractiveness. I dont consider it a flaw is a prestige class is a bit more powerful than a base class...I've always been under the impression that prestige classes are supposed to be like that.
Now you might be right about the Theurge..it might be extremely powerful. it might fit what I believe is the only possible imperical definition of unbalanced...a character with this prestige class might tend to totaly steal the scene from the other characters. But overall in the framework of 3.5, I dont think it will. we'll have to see. and I already know about the Trickster. plus remember thease classes are all supposed to be getting revised..so who knows exactly what the new trickster will look like?