Dead Levels

[UngainlyTitan]

Still no good reason to progress a sorcerer to 20th level. The other classes have sufficient reason to stick with them, but I have always felt there is little reason to stick with sorcerer.

 

[Wik]

Still no good reason to progress a sorcerer to 20th level. The other classes have sufficient reason to stick with them, but I have always felt there is little reason to stick with sorcerer.

And here's my point. If you think "there's no reason to play a sorcerer", then the ability to detect draconic stuff (oo la la! I'm pretty sure I can do that by myself, thanks) isn't going to be enough to convince you not to branch off into one of those broken spellcasting PrCs we all love and hate. And if you like the sorcerer as is (and they exist; I had one in a group a few years back), then that stupid little bonus isn't doing ANYTHING to keep you in the class. In fact, I know for a fact that the 11th level sorcerer in my game wouldn't have stayed in the class if he had an ability that tied him to dragons - we would have had to edit it out and replace it with something (because you can't just throw away an ability - even a filler ability - unless you give something in return).

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I started, I might as well chime in.

I like the fighter ability, the rogue's 20th level ability, and the druid's abilities. Nice, flavorful.

The rangers are ok.

The bards and paladins are worthless.

The cleric, wizard and sorcerer's are all worthless and not strong enough to keep people out of PrCs.

The problem is that you want your clerics to be able to heal and your wizards the ability to do damage. PrCs that don't advance spellcasting rapidly deminish that ability. (compared to rogues, who can keep advancing there skills and fighters who can advance their BAB). I'm not sure how (and if) its possible to slow caster advancment without turning casters useless...