Most Unbalanced Prestige Classes?

[hong]

The real problem here is that the basic spellcasting classes suck and all they offer is additional spellcasting progression. What they SHOULD do is either a) give them a bunch of varied abilities and have the PrCs explore them or b) make some of the spells you get per level a class ability, so that you give up some spell progression by taking a PrC. In my opinion.

Which is pretty much what I did with the druid (OA shaman) and mage (sorcerer) IMC.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, i also want to beat the dead horse, ahem the Mystic Theurge.
I think the best equivalent to the MT would be a prestige class for fighters that gave 2d10 each level (possibly also double constitution modifier), but maybe has medium BAB. (so, the max BAB is +17 instead of +20 - you see, he doesn`t lose his 4th attack))
He doesn`t hit as often as a straight fighter, but he will survive nearly twice as long.
The Mystic Theurge is the same - his spells don`t have the full punch of a straight caster, but it takes nearly twice as long till his spells are up.

And there are some very nice tactics a Mystic Theurge can pull of that don`t require him to cast offensive spells - example:
The invisible healer. Use his arcana invisibility and his divine healing, he can steadily pump up the group fighters, while the enemies have no clue why their target continues fighting. Unlike a Cleric that happens to have invisiblity as a domain spell (and can only cast it once per day), he can do this trick multiple times.

Spoiler

(I believe there is a scenario similar to this in Banewarrens. An evil Ex-Cleric is aided by an invisible caster that constantly heals him. That was really a difficult encounter for us.

Using the Healer Class from (Complete Warrior? Miniature`s Handbook?), we used the same trick with a potion of invisibility - not bad, but it doesn`t work that often...

 

[Celtavian]

re

Well, i also want to beat the dead horse, ahem the Mystic Theurge.
I think the best equivalent to the MT would be a prestige class for fighters that gave 2d10 each level (possibly also double constitution modifier), but maybe has medium BAB. (so, the max BAB is +17 instead of +20 - you see, he doesn`t lose his 4th attack))
He doesn`t hit as often as a straight fighter, but he will survive nearly twice as long.
The Mystic Theurge is the same - his spells don`t have the full punch of a straight caster, but it takes nearly twice as long till his spells are up.

And there are some very nice tactics a Mystic Theurge can pull of that don`t require him to cast offensive spells - example:
The invisible healer. Use his arcana invisibility and his divine healing, he can steadily pump up the group fighters, while the enemies have no clue why their target continues fighting. Unlike a Cleric that happens to have invisiblity as a domain spell (and can only cast it once per day), he can do this trick multiple times.

Spoiler

(I believe there is a scenario similar to this in Banewarrens. An evil Ex-Cleric is aided by an invisible caster that constantly heals him. That was really a difficult encounter for us.

Using the Healer Class from (Complete Warrior? Miniature`s Handbook?), we used the same trick with a potion of invisibility - not bad, but it doesn`t work that often...

Invisibility, Spectral Hand and healing is one awsome Mystic Theurge combination. Wounding is also great once you obtain Greater Invisibility.

 

[Celtavian]

The real problem here is that the basic spellcasting classes suck and all they offer is additional spellcasting progression. What they SHOULD do is either a) give them a bunch of varied abilities and have the PrCs explore them or b) make some of the spells you get per level a class ability, so that you give up some spell progression by taking a PrC. In my opinion.

--p

We added bonus feats to the Sorcerer to improve that class. They receive Eschew Materials at first level and access to Metamagic and a few Sorcerer specific bonus feats every 5 levels like the wizard.

The big problem with clerics is that they spend too much time healing the party to really enjoy their Prc. I think this may be campaign specific, but the encounters we face are often so powerful that all the cleric manages to do is keep the melees alive. They usually spend all their offensive spell power on spontaneous cures and buffing spells like Bless, Death Ward, Energy Resistance, Spell Immunity and Prayer. Not to mention, they are almost always making scrolls or wands to supplement their healing and buffing power during downtime.

Maybe we play a tougher game than most, but the times when the cleric actually gets to throw down are few and far between. Cleric Prc's are usually nice window dressing. They look like fun. They look like they should be overpowered, but they aren't. Clerics (I should qualify this by saying well-played clerics that want to see their party survive) spend too much spellpower keeping the party alive to be able to throw down as well as a melee.

The real class that usually overshadows everyone is the Wizard/Sorcerer. Once they are able to throw down big blasts of magic like Horrid Wilting, nasty death spells like Power Word, Kill, or summon sickeningly powerful monsters like Elder Elementals, they really steal the show. They are like the clean up hitter in a high powered batting order. Once the other guys manage to wear down the enemy, they come in strong and deal the killing blow.

 

[Bulldogc]

Despite initial assumptions, we haven't found mystic theurge to be broken at all. The loss of those high level spells is excrutiating.

I agree, however, about Divine Servant of Pelor -- give up diddly, get lots in return. The same could be said for the archmage, which I would allow nevertheless.

archmage 3.5 dmg looks fine to me u gota be like a 15th level caster to even start on it(dont have it in fromt of me) and even then u gota give up your high level slots to get their abilities so its a nice trade off.

 

[Bulldogc]

Plus, you have to give up actual spell slots in order to use all those fancy-schamncy powers. A very hard thing to give up indeed.

My list of unbalanced PrC's:

Overpowered:
Vigilante (Relics and Rituals)
Thrall of Dispater (Book of Vile Darkness)
Frenzied Berserker (Complete Warrior)
Skylord (Book of Exalted Deeds)
Illithid Savant (Savage Species)

Underpowered:
Tempest (Masters of the Wild) (it was bad in 3.0 and now its really bad in 3.5)
Most of the Disciple and Thrall PrC's from the BoVD
Vermin Lord (BoVD)
Forsaker (MotW)

thrallherd and psionuncarnent are pretty broken to if u usein psionics especialy at higher levels

 

[Psiblade]

There is a major problem with the MT as an invisible healer. If the spell is brought down or they can detect invisible for any reason, enemy fighters five foot step and splatter you all over the walls. The low ac and low hit points are deadly on the front lines. Clerics/Healers with armor/shield/hp and a ring of invis are much better at the invisible healer routine.

Spectral hand is a much better option, but does not last that long. You either have to quicken it (using a 6th level slot) than burns off a chain lightning or spend the first round of combat casting it.

The MT looks awesome on paper, but in reality does not measure up.

-Psiblade

 

[Psion]

I had no intention of continuing this particular discussion in the first place, but I do not appreciate this sort of strawmanning. Either face my arguments head-on, or just drop it.

Each and every one of those points was drawn from an original much longer response directly to your previous post. I merely simmered it down because I felt that a drawn out argument was pointless.

If you wish to clarify your position, then by all means do. But please do not insinuate that I have deliberately misconstrued what you have had to say.

From my perspective, it is you, if anyone, who is guilty of constructing strawmen and not meeting my arguments head on because you have continued to harp on the point of blast mages when I explicitly said several posts that is not the venue in which I have concerns with the MT, yet you continue to beat on it. Either address my concerns or admit I am right, don't continue to tell me I shouldn't be concerned about the MT in combat because I already know that.

I do not see either one of is going to convince the other, and further, I think your insinuations that I am deliberately misconstrued your arguments are getting just a tech personal. I think it is time to leave well enough alone, because I don't see any more light being shed on this issue. Just heat.

 

[ruleslawyer]

From my perspective, it is you, if anyone, who is guilty of constructing strawmen and not meeting my arguments head on because you have continued to harp on the point of blast mages when I explicitly said several posts that is not the venue in which I have concerns with the MT, yet you continue to beat on it.

Er, no, Psion. Let's go back and review my "harp[ing] on blast mages, shall we?

Arguments in my first post:

1) MTs are weaker because they can't beat SR. This is the blast mage point. Note: One argument among the others. Alone

2) No access to high-level spells. This is not a blast mage point, but an overall power point. The fact is that whether you are a blast or utility caster, you work from the top on down, because the high-level spells really are that much better. Lacking access to one, often two entire levels of spells compared with a straight caster even at the top of the PrC is a real problem for the MT.

3) Less additional versatility than you might think (my cleric w/domains vs. MT point). Again, not a "blast mage" point, but an "MT counts for less in the versatility domain than you might think" point.

And the wrap-around argument: SHOW me how the MT becomes a "spotlight hog" when experience in my campaigns and testing on the WotC Char Optimization boards shows the MT to be an excellent (and not overpowered!) cohort and support character, but lacking in the raw power to be a spotlight hog.

Arguments in YOUR first post:

We already know that 3 levels "off the top" is the cost of the class; fixating on SR doesn't prove anything further. Further, it undermines your argument by relying on a very specific condition. You are really only proving they don't make good blast mages, which I can only agree with.

"Fixating on SR" is a strawman argument, Psion.

Not IME. My PC sorcerers and clerics of this level frequently ran through their higher level spells at this level and did have to rely on their lower level spells. My high level party relied extensively on mass haste... but that's only what, a 6th level spell? Likewise, harm is a very viable spell at high levels, as is disintigrate. That's worthless, right? I don't think so.

Fair, and I responded to these arguments individually in the following post. Directly responded, as follows:

...does mass haste even exist in a 3.5 campaign? The MT is a 3.5 PrC, after all. You have to keep that in mind.

...I wouldn't trust an MT to deliver a harm spell, since he's unlikely to have the melee survivability of the cleric; that survivability (and/or the divine reach ability of the hierophant class, which the straight cleric gets much earlier) are essential to delivering harm without getting smushed like a bedbug.

here are many spells that are exclusively arcane and/or exclusively divine; that the cleric is "nearly as good" seems somewhat off. Clerics can't cast teleport, or mass haste, or a variety of other potent spells. Since clerics can access their whole spell list, you can focus your attention on spells that clerics don't have, making those wizard levels even more effective, making the class's very broad indeed.

My response: The Travel domain does have teleport. And:

I repeat. Give me an example of why. Concrete examples of this happening in your campaign would be a really good idea, since I don't see the evidence for this at all. Moreover, the above contention really damages your argument. If anything, the MT's ability to cast lots of lower-level spells that aren't good in direct offensive capacity make them excellent support characters, not spotlight hogs.

Then you come at me with:

Pretending that every challenge you face is a demon with high SR or is a mage duel is far from telling the whole story about the MT.

So you're telling me that this isn't a strawman argument? And that I didn't respond to your arguments directly?
Then, of course, your next post says the following:

1) I disagree that SR is as pivotal as you claim, it only forces the MT to choose other equally valid options for spell selection.
2) I disagree that spells 1 or 2 levels off the highest are useless in a high level game.
3) Domains are not equivalent to a wizard's whole spell list.
4) I disagree that spell endurance is irrelevant in high level games, based on both typical published adventure scenarios and adventures in my own campaign.
5) Finally, you seem to be hinging your entire case around combat against high SR creatures, which is far from the only obstacle that characters face in a well rounded campaign and far from the only determinant in what makes a character whose utility other players will resent.

These arguments seem to not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that I (and, subsequently, Psiblade) raised regarding your posts. Moreover, you play up the SR thing again, which was ONE (count it) of my arguments and represents approximately 20% of my post(s) on the issue. That is what I meant by "strawman," and there's no need to assume that I was being personal; this is an issue of what I feel is an insufficient response to my arguments, not a personal attack. If you felt that I was turning up the heat, I apologize.

 

[Psion]

Er, no, Psion. Let's go back and review my "harp[ing] on blast mages, shall we?

Let's not.

These arguments seem to not even acknowledge the counter-arguments that I (and, subsequently, Psiblade) raised regarding your posts.

Psiblade said nothing about my posts.

That said, they weren't meant to address the minutia of everthing you posted. They were a very abbreviated editing of a long winded reply of the sort that I do not have the patience to be drawn into. But I thought better of it.

I've come a long way since usenet. I know nothing is going to be proven, and if we continue to go down this path, it will just go on until a mod comes to shut us down and nothing will come of it except I will have wasted my afternoon.

So I was just trying to say my peace and bow out. Which I am now doing. You either beleive or you will not. Either you share my values on what makes for a disruptive elements of a game, or you do not. If someone has seen the sorts of problems I have seen and my posts forewarns them of the potential, then great. If someone sees them and says that is not a problem the way they play, that's great too. But I see nothing to be gained by disputing any longer.

Good day sir.