Are PrC's too powerful?

[ForceUser]

Thus I am reluctant to allow any PrC classes. Unless they fit into the world somehow, someway, and I can make a balance judgement on the class, only then will the PrC be allowed in.

Dude, that's the point. A good DM doesn't allow every PrC sight unseen; you're supposed to use the ones you like that fit in your campaign, and discard the rest.

 

[Felon]

Heart:Some concepts go beyond the core classes and what the core classes are capable of. Dragon Disciple is a good example. You begin to take on characteristics of a dragon, the "cost" is levels. If you made the "cost" feats, it would be too easy, if the "cost" was spell research and exp usage (upon completion of the spell) its overly limited to wizards researching spells AND would be very difficult to balance properly. How many exp = wings and greater hit die?

Someone quoted Monte Cook and his perception of a prestige class. I say his perception because even if the idea was wholly his from the beginning, it has grown beyond his initial concept.

Prcs are also a good way to emphasize certain aspects of a class. Take the Shifter, a prc which gains enhanced wildshaping abilities at the cost of spell use. Prcs can be used to make weak concepts viable. Take the int-based fighter, usually far inferior to a fighter based on any physical stat, but with the Duelist prc, it becomes possible.

Prcs can also make certain multiclass combinations that were feasible in the past (wiz/clr) possible again with a prc like Mystic Theurge. They can also emulate "kits" from previous editions like Thief-Acrobat.

Good points all, Technik. Would've said it myself had I gotten here earlier...snipped the part about the oozemaster though

While a lot of people were complaining that the Ranger was broken and didn't fit their personal concept of what a ranger should be (rushing off to cobble together a million different variants) it seemed to occur to only a handful of people to use PrC's to flesh out any particular specialized role. Masters of the Wild did a nice job of this for the most part. You want a tracker that's an implacable manhunter? Bloodhound. Yearn for an archer that's can thread a needle at 100 paces? Deepwood Sniper. Think it'd be cool to play an expert monster killer? Foe Hunter. How about a Tarzan or Beastmaster-type? King of the Jungle and Beast Lord (respectively). OK, the Tempest is a gimp, but other than MotW did a great job for the ranger.

Now, wizard-oriented PrC's put off a lot of people, because often it seems that the class simply enhances the power of the wizard without costing him anything, It's a complaint that goes all the way back to the loremaster in the DMG. And it's usually accurate. But it might to help to stop and notice that, unlike most other classes, the wizard doesn't have anything to trade off. He can't settle for a lower hit die, a lower BAB, fewer skill points, or worse saving throws. He's already sucking it up in all of those areas. If he opts to simply "miss out" on abilities that he'd gain by staying in the core class, it's quite a shaft because all he gets is spellcasting and a free feat every 5 levels.

Personally, I'm inclined to say that the problem isn't the PrC's, but rather that wizzies (and sors) are light on class features. Note that clerics CAN trade off in most of the aforementioned areas, so as a result they get spiffier PrC's that fewer people complain about....and by taking the Magic domain, they can even co-opt a large portion of the wizard's role. Ever seen the look on a wizard's face when the priest of Boccob wins the roll off for a wand of fireballs? Priceless. In short, DM's please support your local wizard: be magnanimous with their PrC's. It's their great equalizer.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Except that this ignores the fact that other classes need gobs of magic items in order to keep up with the Spellcasters; Indeed, the default balance regarding magic items (as well as magic item cost in gold & experience to spellcasters that create them) is deliberately aimed at keeping the other classes up to par with them.

So, yes, I'd definately say that Spellcasters do indeed gain quite a bit (disintegrate, eathquake, miracle/wish, etc.) that other classes simply don't even get close to, and thus benefit greatly from a lack of trade-off when they have so much to gain.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Re: too powerful

I can't say that most PrCs are overwhelmingly too strong, but as noted, players in large numbers are selecting them and that says we should be suspicious and looking at weakening them.

Yes, because anything that lot's of people like is inherently bad...

Personally, I subscribe to the idea that lot's of players select them because the idea tickles their fancy and gives them greater playing enjoyment.

In general terms, when lots of people want to pursue prestige classes, that's a GOOD thing. It means PrCs are an addition which enhanced the game for a large number of people. If people didn't want to use them, that would be an actual problem, because ignored mechanic = pointless clutter = why the hell is it even in the game?

Patrick Y.

 

[Felon]

So, yes, I'd definately say that Spellcasters do indeed gain quite a bit (disintegrate, eathquake, miracle/wish, etc.) that other classes simply don't even get close to, and thus benefit greatly from a lack of trade-off when they have so much to gain.

Hey, spells make the world go 'round. But that spellacting is all bound up in an all-or-nothing package, which as I was saying is where the problem with spellcasting PrC's come in. Either they lose spellcasting levels or they don't. The former is counter-productive to a wiz-oriented PrC, while the latter makes it look OTT. It's a tricky thing to balance.

If the contention is that spellcasting is such a powerful ability that it validates giving a class the worst HP, BAB, the fewest-possible skill points, almost no access weapon/armor, and on top of all that should be the class's sole feature, then again I point out the discrepency between arcane and divine casters. Why only apply that principle towards the arcane? Clerics & druids get along pretty well in the aforementioned areas, and as a result they have the collateral to apply for lots of nice PrC features.

In previous editions divine spellcasting played second fiddle to arcane. Not so in 3e. Divine magic now weighs in almost pound-for-pound, and indeed has many major advantages over arcane (shouldn't really be necessary to enumerate them, should it?). All one can say that arcane has going for it is "well, arcane casters have access to this spell or that spell" (which is a game that can easily be played both ways).

Yes, because anything that lot's of people like is inherently bad...Personally, I subscribe to the idea that lot's of players select them because the idea tickles their fancy and gives them greater playing enjoyment.

Hmm. Sounds like behavioralism vs. humanism. Are players innately good at heart, or a bunch of munchkin cheeseballs?

Safest bet is to say that people choose PrC's for all sorts of reasons. I've seen PrC's attract interest just because it had a cool picture (and, conversely, more than a few crummy pictures have been the cause of kneejerk page-flipping).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

(which is a game that can easily be played both ways).

Not really. After all, your comments can be summed up as the Wizard being underpowered in-total because they have the same spell potency of the Cleric and none of the class features (armored casting, healing/spontaneous healing/spontaneous harming, turning, etc.) and that Prestige Classes help make up for it. However, this would be a most erroneous claim.

 

[Felon]

Not really. After all, your comments can be summed up as the Wizard being underpowered in-total because they have the same spell potency of the Cleric and none of the class features (armored casting, healing/spontaneous healing/spontaneous harming, turning, etc.)

Not underpowered in comparison to the cleric or druid, just underfeatured--and when designing PrC's, that's a problem. While it would be pretty hard to advocate that Turning or Wildshape was as puissant an ability as Spellcasting, they are still great features that enhance and round out classes that also possess spellcasting. Then factor in the gap in hit points, armor class, saving throws, and more. In order to claim there's no discrepency in the wizard's lack of features, one would have to be able to argue that arcane spells were overwhelmingly superior to divine. That just isn't so in 3e. Do you disagree?

and that Prestige Classes help make up for it. However, this would be a most erroneous claim.

OK, how so? To clarify my point: if a PrC adds a minor class feature or two to a vanilla-flavored sorcerer or wizard, it doesn't necessarily make the PrC OTT just because the wiz/sor didn't lose any class features (because he really had only a single feature to give up in the first place).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

[See Edit]

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Dude, that's the point. A good DM doesn't allow every PrC sight unseen; you're supposed to use the ones you like that fit in your campaign, and discard the rest.

It is very rare that a player can't think of some way to have a PrC fill a role in the world. And if the player has created a good story that fits the PrC, it is harder to deny the class.

Also, there are several PrCs that don't seem to fit any particular niche. Archmage comes to mind. What high level spellcaster in FR doesn't have this PrC? It just seems they all have "powerhouse" in common. Red Wizard can be just as bad. While it serves a role in FR, the spell power can be unbalancing (especially those who combine it with the Archmage).

Yeah, I'm picking on FR a little. I don't buy the splat books, so I can't say much there. I do have the Manual of the Planes, and the PrCs in there appear pretty balanced, perhaps a little on the weak side, IMO, but closer to what PrCs should be than many others. The DMG PrCs are decent as well, a good starting point for those wanting to make their own PrCs.

 

[Technik4]

I think the biggest "problem" with 3e is the customization (with regards to Prestige Classes). Not trying to be critical, in many ways it outdid what many thought possible, but some things can only be seen from hindsight.

Take the barbarian for example. This class generally doesn't have issues with prcs. Why? Because they have interesting abilities to gain later by taking more barbarian levels, and they aren't hardwired to the class.

Spellcasting is pretty hardwired, it is usually considered the bulk of a class's power and if you take it away it becomes difficult to compensate. Imagine a barbarian prc where they did not gain BAB (or gained it at the wizard's rate). Not a pretty thought eh?

As far as spellcasters go, the druid and the wizard are the closest to the barbarian (for this discussion). They both have at least 2 good reasons to stay a druid or a wizard, things that prcs usually can't give, or can't give all of.

The cleric, sorceror, and bard are not as customizable as a hardwired feature (the druid also lacks the "customization" part, but it has the barbarian's "gain cool abilities by having more barbarian levels" ideal, with wildshape and thousand faces). This means that a sorceror doesn't have metamagic feats to lose by joining a prc, a cleric doesn't have any ability besides turning that they will lose by joining a prc (more on the cleric in a sec) and as long as the bard gets spellcasting and perform as a class skill, he's pretty golden.

There are mitigating factors for the bard and cleric. Both do not have the WORST BAB or the WORST HD. Clerics do have the WORST skill point/level, but bards do not. Prcs for clerics or bards should take this into account. If you are going to make a prc with clerics in mind and you wish to give cool abilities, full spellcasting, and full turning something has to give. And the cleric can give, she can give up her medium BAB, her good HD, or one of her good saves.

Then we come to the bastard of the 3e classes, the one which is altogether "new" to d&d, and unfortunately, the worst on the receiving end. There is 1 mitigating factor to remain a straight sorceror, and it is small (familiar abilities). You can't create a sorceor prc with a worse BAB than what he's got, its already the worst. Ditto HD, skill points/level, armor, everything. Hence, when designing a sorceror prc the ONLY THING you can penalize is spellcasting levels. Which, since the sorc was designed to be 1 level behind any other straight caster, puts him farther behind on his primary skill.

Anyway, to wrap this rambling up my point is this: If every class were designed with bonuses to look forward to at later levels, you would not see as many prcs being printed or chosen (although that depends on the group) for power-related reasons.

Here is a list of why you should stay in your base class (assuming the prc has similar base stats as the class you are leaving) [3.0]:

Barbarian: Uncanny Dodge, Greater Rage, DR, d12 HD
Bard: Good Skill list (heh)
Cleric: Turning
Druid: Wildshape, Venom Immunity, Thousand Faces, Eventually Immune Aging
Fighter: Feats, Feats, Feats (I think the fighter needs more "signature" feats like weapon spec)
Monk: the most reasons, but also the least amount of customization because all of those abilities are hardwired instead of chosen. OA rectified this a bit.
Paladin: Warhorse Abilities, Lay on Hands, Remove Disease (heh), Spellcasting
Ranger: Favored Enemy Bonuses, Spellcasting
Rogue: High level rogue abilities (hopefully a couple new ones in 3.5), sneak attack progression, uncanny dodge
Sorceror: Familiar advancement
Wizard: Familiar advancement, metamgic feats

The above list is not all-inclusive and with 3.5 coming out will hopefully be more evened out.

Technik