Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moritheil" data-source="post: 4187448" data-attributes="member: 30610">I think you have misapplied my statement.  My point is for classes like duskblade and beguiler, a lot of being able to do what they do is tied into the abilities they get when they progress as the base class.  However, this also functions as a built-in limitation.  Their potential for growth via PrCs is not the same.  By default, any base class only grows stronger when you add in more PrCs (assuming you do not choose foolishly.)  But this is not the case with Beguiler; the vast majority of PrCs are either unsuitable for it or do not offer enough to make them worth giving up Beguiler levels.  Thus when considering actual characters (which are going to have PrCs mixed in, and which is the ultimate level at which things should be balanced) it's fair to compare Beguilers to PrC mixes.  Your statement that it is not a fair comparison presupposes that Beguilers could go on to gain from PrCs in the same way that wizards can - and they really can't.To answer your example, let's take an analogy.  I think if you took the warlock in the old environment - before PrCs were adapted to make them actually advance warlock invocations - then yes, it might be fair to compare it to a PrC designed to fill a similar role.  Why?  The player of a warlock essentially had no choice, no options for PrCs.  So the only thing you can do is to compare it to other characters as final products, because in the step where you add PrCs to the character the warlock player is twiddling his thumbs.Or perhaps you think it's fair to say, "Here's a class that is unsuitable for pretty much every PrC, but because we want to keep base classes balanced, chars from this class get to be utterly screwed when other characters progress to PrCs and it can't."  Is that result balanced?</blockquote>

Verification