[Complete Divine] Radiant Servant of Pelor is too powerful.

[Spatula]

I think (Psi)SeveredHead's point is that no PrC should have more than 9 out of 10 levels of spellcasting, not that every spellcasting PrC should only give 5 out of 10 levels of spellcasting.

 

[borc killer]

I have a high level RSoP in one of my games right now and for the past 15 levels or so they have been fighting nothing but undead… and I have not noticed the class being over powered in the slightest even against the mobs of undead they fight. And I want to say that I as a DM really watch for over powered PCs and nurf them when I have good cause…

Second off none of us in that game have even noticed that it had marital weapon proficiency… LOL but I will be nurffing that now because there is absolute no reason for that class to have it. Now maybe that says something about my observation skills… but the player did not know it ether hehe.

Now I do have to agree that a cleric of Palor would be nuts to not take this class assuming they meet the requirements… but I don’t think they class is ‘over powered’ per say… just a really good option for someone following Palor.

Borc Killer

 

[Numion]

Healing domain overpowered? Not in my experience. Since our first 3e campaign clerics have rarely even spent that many slots on healing .. mostly relying on after-combat cure light wounds wands. Cleric can never match the damage dealing capacity of the enemies with healing, so its better to cast offensive spells and heal after combat.

Heal and Mass heal make a difference, but healing domain doesn't affect those.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The rub in that is that if taking a PrC means giving up 9th level spells, then the PrC probably isn't worth bothering with.

Giving up 1 or 2 caster levels won't make you give up 9th-level spells.

Which is why most of the PrCs have full caster progression; they're trying to write PrCs that people would actually want to take.

And I will translate this as "they're trying to write PrCs without a real cost".

 

[LightPhoenix]

I have to agree with (Psi)... the tradeoff that a straight spellcaster pays for their nifty powers is that they lose spellcasting power. If you want to be the most powerful generalized spellcaster, you stay as the core class. This is especially true, IMO, for Wizards and Sorcerers, who have little to lose.

Clerics have much more to lose, but the problem with the Radiant Servant doesn't make them lose much at all - they have more powerful turning, equal spellcasting, better proficiencies, better healing, slightly better saves, equal skills, plus the extra abilities... the only things they lose is a bit of flexibility (since they need to take Sun and Healing to make full use of the class), one point of BAB, and 1 hit point per level. That's barely a sacrifice at all.

For the record, the class in Dragon (#283, p. 42) doesn't require the Sun Domain (which has presumably changed in CD to make it more generic), and specifies that the Empower/Maximize healing only pertains to domain spells.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Second off none of us in that game have even noticed that it had marital weapon proficiency…

I thought the class was in complete divine, not the Book of Erotic Fantasy...

 

[shilsen]

Second off none of us in that game have even noticed that it had marital weapon proficiency

Well, if the RSoP PC wasn't married, there's no reason it should have come into play

 

[Epametheus]

Giving up 1 or 2 caster levels won't make you give up 9th-level spells.

1 or 2 levels is a token price; only a slight improvement over a PrC granting cool stuff and full spells.

And I will translate this as "they're trying to write PrCs without a real cost".

Well, yeah. "Appealing" and "balanced" have incredibly little to do with each other, and might even be at odds. They opted for appealing; a PrC that no one would ever want to take is a waste of space.

Wizards lose a couple bonus feats and familiar progression, while sorcerers just lose familiar progression. Familiars are so negligible as an ability that giving that up amounts to giving up nothing.

Clerics give up better Turning, which may or may not be completely useless in a campaign, and might take a hit in some of the domain powers not scaling, like Smite from Destruction and Death Touch from the Death domain. Many of the domain powers don't scale at all, so this usually isn't a great loss.

Druids are the only good spellcaster class that actually has to give up something good if they want to take a PrC in the first place.

Everyone but the druids come out completely ahead if they still get 9th level spells and get cool powers on top of that. If they don't come out of it with 9th level spells, than they'll almost certianly be inferior to someone that does have 9th level spells, and thus taking the PrC actually hurt the character.

Druids already get cool powers and 9th level spells from their base class, so they've got the most to lose from going after a PrC. Do we have anyone here that's played a druid and actually went for a PrC?

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Al'Kelhar's rule of thumb (as a DM):

A prestige class must never be more powerful overall than a core class.

It is sometimes difficult to discern this balance with some of the more novel PrCs, but it's a relatively easy comparison for those PrCs designed for core spellcasters which have a +1 caster level progression. What does a core spellcaster stand to lose if it takes a +1 caster level per level advancement PrC:

- sorcerers lose familiar advancement;
- wizards lose familiar advancement and one bonus feat per 5 levels;
- clerics lose undead turning advancement;
- druids lose wild shape advancement, companion animal advancement, natural poison immunity, saving throw bonuses against feys etc.

Thus, a prestige class which grants +1 caster level per level advancement can give no more than that which is lost. On this score, the Radiant Servant of Pelor is "way broken" (i.e. grossly overpowered). A cleric loses an average of 10 hit points over 10 levels, but his turning capability is dramatically enhanced, as is his healing.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My rule of thumb is this: a specialist should be better than a generalist in his specialty. I don't have a particular problem with the RSoP being better than a normal cleric at healing. In fact, I think it's a welcome change from all of the i33t cleric roxxor melee or offensive spellcasting methods (like the 3e madness domain, the 3e Hospitaller, etc). If the cleric is focussing his power-gaming energies on being a better healer (ie making the rest of the party look better),

I'll grant that, if you want to play a healing and undead turning cleric, RSOP is the best way to go about it. (Well, actually, if healing is ALL you're after, Clr 1/Ftr 7/Divine Crusader 1 (healing)/RSoP 10 (adding to Divine Crusader levels) is probably the best way to go but that's REALLY inflexible). However, it comes at a significant cost in flexibility--both in domain choices and in gods.

I'm not altogether happy with the class but I don't think that removing lots of abilities is the answer. I'd be happy to spread the extra greater turnings out and remove Positive Energy Burst and Martial Weapons on the benefits side and to add a bit on the prerequisites side (Skill Focus: Heal--and possibly Improved Turning would be appropriate). At that point, if you wanted to be a spellblaster cleric (focussing on curses, holds, commands, flame strikes, destructions, etc), or a melee cleric, you probably don't want to be a RSoP. (Archer clerics will already want to avoid RsoP).