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

[Davelozzi]

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...

Well said, Morg, I couldn't agree more.

 

[Dispater]

I'm a bit unsure about the Horizon Walker. The flavour text didn't say me much, apart from that one should expect a lot of walking.

Red Wizards? Blergh. Glad about the archmage.

I certainly hope they are revising some of the old classes, such as Dragon Disciple or the Shadowdancer. Only class I'm a bit exited about is the Thaumaturgist.

 

[Oni]

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?

No worries, I'm certianly not offended. Though I guess I came across as rather terse in that last post, happens when I'm thinking and typing too fast.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the division between arcane and divine done away with myself either, though I'm not holding my breath that will happen in dnd anytime soon. I do like the idea of roleplaying defining the source of ones magic and the nature of the caster. I think this could be done and still have strong balance in the rules. The MT doesn't quite have that kind of looseness to me, it's still firmly a cleric and a wizard (or druid/sorcerer, whateve ), and clerics are so heavily defined by their god and faith that it really fells like a cleric who just happens to be trained as a wizard as well.

In regards to the fix for multiclassing. Personally I don't see it as much different than bard's musical abilities getting better, or a character gaining more HP as their level. I mean a fighter takes levels of another class they still get better, more HP, more BAB, jut not as good as they might have gotten if they had stayed fighters. I see allowing character level for caster level as much the same way. The caster gets a little better, making him more viable at higher levels without slighting those that chose to stick with the class. Personally I would consider gaining new spells or spell slots potentially too powerful, in my opinion that is the case with the amount gained through the MT.

I'm not sure that PrC's are really meant to be more powerful in general than the base classes, but rather in a more focused area. The thing with the MT is that it is less focused than a core class, yet gains immense benefits. I don't think you should have to turn to a PrC what the MT does, it doesn't really add anything new or focus, like most other PrC's. Personally I believe that there is an over proliferation of PrC's and that many of them could have been done simply through multiclassing and the additon of a few feats. I think that PrC's that should be reserved for things that are harder to do with the core rules. The dragon disciple is a good example of this. And I really don't want anyone to feel like they have to take a PrC in order to stay competitive or to contribute, instead of staying with a base class.

Your mentioning of stealing the scene, reminds me of something that I haven't really touched upon. That is the importance of party balance and role in dnd. Another worry I have with the MT is less of a mechanical one, and more one of one player stealing another thunder. I mean typically what makes a wizard or a cleric special, well it's what they can do and what they can't do. The MT doesn't have this as much, and it might step on other people's toes infringing on their roles. This is a less definable worry and that is part of the reason that I haven't really said much about it, there is after all more to defining what makes a character special than whats on the character sheet, but I do believe that it is part of it.

 

[drnuncheon]

Your mentioning of stealing the scene, reminds me of something that I haven't really touched upon. That is the importance of party balance and role in dnd. Another worry I have with the MT is less of a mechanical one, and more one of one player stealing another thunder. I mean typically what makes a wizard or a cleric special, well it's what they can do and what they can't do. The MT doesn't have this as much, and it might step on other people's toes infringing on their roles.

I would think that this is pretty adequately covered by the single-class spellcaster having an extra spell level. Therefore, they've got stuff they can do that the MT can't, and even the stuff that they can both do, the single-class is better at.

J

 

[Technik4]

Been Asleep all Day

Re: "Prc designed for Base Classes"

It seems like some of you that don't like a prc designed with a class in mind are the same ones that like Archmage. I think its pretty clearly a wiz/sorc prc. How about Heirophant? Clr/Drd all the way (if they allow the druid entry with Knowledge (Nature) in place of Knowledge (Religion) or if they just give the Druid Knowledge (Religion)).

So what would be so bad with a prc that emphasized some of a class' abilities and turned off the rest?

I want a bard prc with 0 spell progression and powerful spell-like songs.

I want a bard prc with full spell progression and a stronger skill list, with the ability to gain even more spells than a normal bard, but without upper level musical abilities.

I want a paladin prc that emphasizes his mount and his smite, a cavalier of some sort.

I want a paladin prc that emphasizes spell-casting and healing, perhaps with lower BAB.

I think its pretty obvious that there are TONS of prcs designed for the cleric, the wizard (and usually thereby the sorc, but keep in mind that most of them favor the wizard), the fighter, and the rogue. I realize that those are the common archetypes, and I realize that a prc designed for those classes in mind can be entered by anyone with the appropriate prereqs.

As to someone's comment about the relative power of the Frenzied Beserker, Forsaker, Shifter, and Animal Lord: Yes they weren't necessarily perfect in their classbook incarnation, but if they were going into the DMG Im sure they would be looked at more closely, much more closely.

This is the root of the problem:

Lets say Ive got 4 pcs.

Brb5
Clr5
Rog5
Wiz5

3 of those characters can look forward to prcs in the DMG.

Or how about this?

Rgr5
Pal5
Rog3/Ftr2
Clr2/Wiz3

Looks like 2 of them can get a prc, but what about the rest? My point is that there ARE prcs designed for specifically one class, but there aren't prcs designed specifically for certain classes. As I said earlier, the fact that the base class gains a lot of "odd-abilities" doesnt preclude prcs, look at the monk.

There should be prcs that include wildshape advancement, rage (and DR) advancement, paladin mount advancement, etc.

And yeah, 1 example in the DMG would be nice.

Technik

 

[Technik4]

The fact that some prcs can fill 2 roles is great for small parties (3 people) or parties where people dont like playing certain classes. 3 big-fighter types and 1 magic-guy, its happened a lot in my experience, its nice that the 1 magic-guy can try and cover the whole group.

Technik

 

[Voadam]

Re: Been Asleep all Day

I want a bard prc with full spell progression and a stronger skill list, with the ability to gain even more spells than a normal bard, but without upper level musical abilities.

Technik

You mean without the skill perform as a class skill?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: Been Asleep all Day

You mean without the skill perform as a class skill?

I suspect the revision tackles that aspect of Bardiness.

-Hyp.

 

[The Cardinal]

Re: How much will they change?

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...

I seriously hope that they will give the EK/Spellsword 2.0 full spell progression - because this would made the PrC viable, not broken.
My wish for the changes from Spellsword to Eldritch Knight:

Requirements:

Feats: Weapon Specialization
Spells: Ability to cast arcane spells of 1st level or higher

Features:
1. full spell progression
2. Ignore Spell Failure: 5% per level
3. remove the bonus feat at level 8, and replace it with something special. (maybe he can choose between 4 "arcane/eldritch fighting" effects: Defense (+2 insight bonus to AC), Precision (+2 insight bonus to attack), Destruction (+2 bonus to damage) and Speed (may "flurry", i.e. one extra attack at highest BAB, but all attacks suffer -2 modifier)

 

[Michael Tree]

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?

I suspect that the list is spellcaster heavy because the PrCs in the DMG exist primarily as examples of how to create prestige classes, and creating balanced spellcaster PrCs is tricky.