Hospitaller balanced?

[Chun-tzu]

Which prestige classes? The available ones cover a wide range of power and abilities. I could compare just about anything to the Hospitaler and make the other class look good.

A lot of the official (and unofficial) prestige classes aren't terribly balanced, in terms of the losses and bonuses more or less adding up.

Okay, and the Arcane Trickster is clearly much more powerful than any kind of core rogue/mage.

<snip Arcane Trickster analysis>

You're comparing the AT to a straight wizard or rogue, not to a multiclass wizard/rogue, which is the starting point for the prestige class.

Right, I am. What else should a mage/rogue be, except a watered down version of each? From what I've read on these boards, the Arcane Trickster seems to have worked out fine (as is) in many campaigns. It's a bit weak at the levels just before achieving the PrC, then catches up, and becomes relatively powerful at higher levels.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly9.html
http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly10.html

These are some articles that Monte Cook wrote on designing prestige classes that I basically agree with, and he explains what I'm trying to get across probably much better than I can. Some snippets:

Yeah, I've read his stuff. Monte also says that one of the functions of Prestige Classes is to make an otherwise non-viable concept workable. This, I think, is where we might be disagreeing.

Some people say that an evenly multiclassed mage/rogue is perfectly fine. Some (including me) think it's weak, and that even multiclassing is just a terrible idea for any serious spellcaster. So, yes, the Arcane Trickster is clearly more powerful than a mage/rogue, but that's because a mage/rogue is too weak, and in need of the boost.

So, if you think a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is just as powerful as any other level 20 character, then the Arcane Trickster is overpowered. But if you think a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is at a disadvantage to other level 20 characters, then a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10 is fine. (And for the record, I think the Arcane Trickster is a little overpowered, but not terribly.)

 

[The Souljourner]

There's a line in the spells section about hospitaler levels stacking with cleric levels for spellcasting, so apparently they thought about it somewhat. The class doesn't actually seem able to turn undead, the description doesn't mention it other than to say that hospitaler spellcasting levels don't give you better turn undead abilities. There's just that mention of it on the chart... Where's the errata for Defenders of the Faith, anyway?

Errata is this: +1 caster level every level. Turn undead is gained at 3rd level (thus levels 1 and 2 don't count towards your turning checks). Drop all the stuff about domains etc - you keep all your existing domains and don't gain any new ones.

It's too bad they don't specify on hospitaler +1 *paladin* caster level, if you don't have paladin levels, start off at level 1. That would make it a good paladin class - giving up the mount and a couple turn undead levels for some feats. They should do that for more classes.

As a cleric class.... if they dumped all the abilities except caster level, BAB, and feats... I think it would be good.

And about the arcane trickster - I still maintain it's fine. It's a wizard with sneak attack. Big deal. Wizards cast spells... and while you can sneak attack with them, the best spells don't work that way. So, it's really not a big deal.

And yeah, it's better than rogue/wizard (in most ways but not all)... but multiclass spellcasters have *always* been on the low end of the power scale in 3e, so it's not like we're comparing it to something spectacularly powerful.

-The Souljourner

 

[Spatula]

Some people say that an evenly multiclassed mage/rogue is perfectly fine. Some (including me) think it's weak, and that even multiclassing is just a terrible idea for any serious spellcaster. So, yes, the Arcane Trickster is clearly more powerful than a mage/rogue, but that's because a mage/rogue is too weak, and in need of the boost.

So, if you think a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is just as powerful as any other level 20 character, then the Arcane Trickster is overpowered. But if you think a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is at a disadvantage to other level 20 characters, then a Rogue 5/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 10 is fine.

That's why I threw in the 5/15 and 15/5 rogue/wizard comparisons as well. Keeping even levels when multiclassing usually is not optimal, but using a handful of levels of one class to spice up another is fairly common IME and probably the best use of multiclassing. I don't think a 15/5 R/W, for example, is a sub-optimal character, although it is compared to a 5/5/10 Arcane Trickster, IMO. There is absolutely no case to be made for the 5/15 R/W vs. the Arcane Trickster, and that to me is a red flag.

(And for the record, I think the Arcane Trickster is a little overpowered, but not terribly.)

 

[The Souljourner]

I don't think a 15/5 R/W is suboptimal compared to the AT at all. Differences: uncanny dodge (flanking), 2 special abilities, +3 BAB, a ton more skillpoints (one of the rogue's main benefits, remember?). That's fairly big.

Now as for the other way around... I definitely agree. It's definitely better than 5/15 R/W. However, that's to be expected, for two reasons. First, and most importantly, multiclassing a few levels of non-spellcaster into a spellcaster in general just makes the spellcaster suckier. *Especially* sorcerers and wizards. Second, it's a wizard with a few rogue-like elements... that's what this class *does*. You *need* 3 non-spellcaster levels to take it... that's a really big drawback right there. AT is pretty well balanced, IMO.

-The Souljourner

 

[Apok]

Now back to the Hospitaler - If you actually read the description they're not combat medics running around healing the sick. They protect people on pilgrimages (thus the mounted combat... generally you don't alk for any significant distance) and guard temples, relics, etc etc. Their job is to protect, not heal, so the fighter feats and BAB make sense.

Yes, I have read the written description of the Hospitlar and I have to say that their interpretation of the PrC is flawed. According to the authors, they protect the faithfull, guard temples, and keep holy relics safe...

Isn't that what the Templar is supposed to do?

So, it appears we have two PrC's that have basically the same function. That's why I've changed the overall function to Field Medic rather than "Generic Holy Protector Dude." I think their abilities are fine as is, though the mounted prerequesite feats don't make much sense. True, they don't have any unique abilities regarding healing but they do get Lay on Hands and Remove Disease. If you are taking this PrC as a Cleric, then it doesn't reduce your overall spellcaster level and thusly your Curative spells effectiveness doesn't degrade. The fighter BAB does make sense since, in any battle situation, you must keep yourself alive to help the wounded or at times fight off groups of enemies trying to keep you from fallen comerades.

So, taken like this, the Hospitlar has a niche and the build makes sense. Just remember the Code.

 

[LordAO]

I'm getting very tired of "Is this too powerful threads". If everything was "too powerful", shouldn't that make it balanced then?

"Archers, Clerics, Sorcerers, Rogues, Weapon Masters, magic items"... all are too powerful. Come on people.

 

[Apok]

I'm getting very tired of "Is this too powerful threads". If everything was "too powerful", shouldn't that make it balanced then?

"Archers, Clerics, Sorcerers, Rogues, Weapon Masters, magic items"... all are too powerful. Come on people.

Yeah, I'm right with you there, LordAO. I'm starting to think that the next generation of D&D gamers is becomming a pack of candyarsed whiners.

Of course, that's just my opinion...