Dead Levels

[Delta]

Thoughts? Too good, too weak, or perfect?

Too complicated.

 

[DarkKestral]

I get that, but really, these "abilities" are pretty much useless (the developer's notes say as much, don't they?). So, the logic there is wrong; nothing's really changed.

They're not meant to really boost the stong classes in power too much. They're just meant to provide some reason, however minor to not take the PrC du jour for clerics, sorcerors, wizards, and fighters.

 

[Wik]

They're not meant to really boost the stong classes in power too much. They're just meant to provide some reason, however minor to not take the PrC du jour for clerics, sorcerors, wizards, and fighters.

I realize this, but it just seems silly to me.

If I am playing a cleric because "clerics rock!" I'm going to keep taking cleric levels, regardless of special abilities they're offering me.

If I am playing a cleric to take levels in some prestige class or another, then I'm not going to go "Oh, wait, I can't take levels in the PrC... if I do, I'll never be able to ask my god what his dress size is!"

There's no point to it all, is what I'm saying.

***

A more useful way of keeping players out of PrC's and in their core classes would be feats that are similar to fighter specialization feats. If there were a feat that had "Cleric Level 10" in its requirements (and I know that's a no-no), it would be a much more concrete reason for someone to stay as a cleric; much better than something like the ability to detect undead at a distance.

 

[DarkKestral]

Wik: OK, but the point still remains that there are levels at which a lot of classes get hardly anything. for Wizards, if they aren't taking PrCs, generally, they are actively gimping themselves, as some PrCs give a far better skill list for that wizard to be working with, similar feats/abilities, and in some cases, better saves, BAB, or HD.

at a d4 HD, with only 1 good save, and BAB +1/2, if the wizard has access to PrCs that give him better spellcasting, 15 times out of 20, it's ALWAYS at least a non-hurting option to take them. Sometimes, with the right builds, he can improve that.

 

[Crothian]

Wik: OK, but the point still remains that there are levels at which a lot of classes get hardly anything. for Wizards, if they aren't taking PrCs, generally, they are actively gimping themselves, as some PrCs give a far better skill list for that wizard to be working with, similar feats/abilities, and in some cases, better saves, BAB, or HD.

Then shouldn't we be limiting the PrCl to get them in line with the Wizard?

 

[DarkKestral]

Since wizards only get 1 feat per 5 levels, and most wizard PrCs require at least 4-5 feats, i'd say you need SOME power boost, because you're paying 4-5 feats, many of which may be highly sub-optimal. Furthermore, to bring them down 'in line' with sorcerors and wizards, you would essentially need to get rid of them entirely, because sorcerors have no non-familiar special abilities, and wizards only get them once every 5 levels.

Therefore, boosting base classes is by far the better option, as it brings THEM more in line with the current reality, and provides a distinct and significant reason to go Wiz 20, Sorceror 20, Fighter 20, or Cleric 20. Gutting PrCs isn't an option, as that will drive players to only play classes that offer them the rate of special ability advancement they are currently used to, but boosting base classes means that PrC entry is more likely to be less common. Part of the idea behind prestige classes has always been to provide a small boost in power in a small area at the cost of generality, so gutting them pretty well damages the concept.

An alternative tack might be to do what you are suggesting, but for a 3.0/3.5 game, I would rather boost the core base classes to a given level, rather that have to gut 90% of the published material for PrCs and reboot. If I was doing such a thing, I'd much rather play d20 Modern, in which the base classes already offer something EVERY level, there's no multiclassing penalties, there is an expectation of characters moving from the relatively weak base class(es) to an advanced class and onto a prestige class if possible, and due to class-based defense and individual purchasing of armor proficiencies and the way weapon proficiencies work, it is more balanced for light armored fighting.

 

[delericho]

I just don't see any player really being swayed by these minor class abilities that the designer make a big point out of saying "look, they don't really do anything". The only way to prevent a character from not taking a "dead level" (assuming they're of the sort that wants something fun every class level), is to add powerful abilities to the mix. And, well, that's just broken.

I agree with this. While I agree, in principle, that 'dead levels' are less than ideal (though I don't consider any level that gives access to a new level of spells 'dead'), fixing it can't really be done without redesigning the classes as a whole, so that the powers that are given out are given out on a more smooth progression. Adding more minor abilities isn't going to solve anything, and adding more major abilities will break the game.

Probably the trickiest problem comes with Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics, and the many PrCs that give "+1 level of existing spellcasting class". Give that out at every level, and there's very little reason not to take the class. Yet miss it out, and suddenly the class looks very unappealing. (Worse, give it for the first X levels and then miss a level or two, and you'll see lots of X-level dips into the class, but virtually no-one with X+1 or more levels of the class.)

I think perhaps the answer there is to give that ability at every level except the first and/or to give the ability but restrict the range of spells that casters of that class can use somehow. (Perhaps the "True Necromancer" PrC gives the ability, but requires the PC to select two opposition schools that they cannot cast with the levels gained from this PrC. Obviously, specialist wizards who enter the PrC would have to choose two more such schools.)

But that's just me thinking off the top of my head; there are probably lots of reasons that wouldn't work

 

[wayne62682]

Wow those abilities are just.. utter crap. Absolutely worthless. Talk about throwing a bone!

 

[Fishbone]

The Sorcerer thing is like, whooptydoo, ya know? Someone can either take 2 weaker feats and get 6 to 10 strong prestige class abilities and not lose any casting ability or they can get a +17 to detect dragon turtles! Come on! There is no incentive to stay straight sorcerer and until there is a major, and I do mean major change there never will be. Its always going to be Sor 5/X 10/Y 5.
Why thats bad I'll never know.
Same for clerics, too.

 

[Justin Bacon]

Thoughts? Too good, too weak, or perfect?

I commented in the other thread about identifying the worst design decision ever made by WotC (allowing spellcasting prestige classes that got special abilities and +1 level of spellcasting every level). But I also found the Cleric ability hilariously bad:

Undead Intuition (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a cleric can identify undead creatures during an encounter from any distance. The cleric gains a +2 bonus on Knowledge (religion) checks to identify undead creatures, but gains no insight about their special powers or vulnerabilities. See Knowledge checks on page 78 of the Player's Handbook. Moreover, the cleric can make these Knowledge (undead) checks untrained. This bonus increases by +1 for each cleric level the character takes after 2nd level.

The type of Knowledge check changes half-way through. They claim that these Knowledge checks don't allow he cleric to "gain insight about their special powers or vulnerabilities", but then refer you to the Knowledge skill which tells you that these Knowledge checks do allow you to "identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities".

I'm not sure if the intention was that:

1. You make the check and compare the total result to the DC to determine whether you can identify the monster; but then

2. You strip out the cleric's bonus to the check before determining whether they actually know any "useful information" about the creature.

Or if they just don't know the rules they're citing.

Either way, that's horrible design. Either (a) it's incompetent; or (b) it's utterly useless (unless the players are metagaming).