How does one balance a PrC?

[Mouseferatu]

Figure out which core class is most like the PrC, and most likely to take that PrC. Then answer the following questions honestly.

1) Completely leaving roleplaying and flavor questions aside, and thinking only in terms of mechanics, is there any good reason for a member of that core class not to take the PrC?

2) Think of what the core class is best at. Is the PrC better at doing that same thing at the same level?

3) If it is better at doing that thing, is it better in general, or only in specific circumstances or situations?

If the answer to the first question is "no," the class is too powerful, pure and simple.

If the answer to number two is "yes," you may have a problem, depending on the answer to number three. For instance, let's look at a combat-heavy PrC. If it's a better fighter than an actual fighter of the same level, you may have a problem. If it's only better in certain circumstances--when standing on a boat at sea, when using a spiked chain, or the like--you might be okay, so long as those circumstances aren't constant in your setting. If the PrC is better in general, or if the circumstances in which it's better are too common, than it's too powerful and not balanced.

And by the way... By my own personal estimation, a large number of the PrCs that grant spell advancement "as per prior class" every level are overbalanced. But that's just me.

 

[BSF]

Well, a quick benchmark is to step back and look at the PrC. Would every Arcane Spellcaster want to take it? If there is no compelling reason why every arcane spellcaster in your world wouldn't take it, then it is probably a bit overpowered.

Looking at your specific PrC, it looks very specialized. The skill requirements alone will make it less than appealing to most PC's. I'm not sure you necessairly need to "balance" the PrC. Though, you might discard the bonus feat at 5th level, or change it to a social skill focus type feat.

In the end, it comes down to a judgement call. My general rule is that I don't want any one character's abilities to supercede the abilities of the other characters the majority of the time.

 

[GuardianLurker]

If you *really* want to know how to build PrCs, go to MonteCook's site (www.montecook.com) and check out the prestige class forum on his message boards.

The folks there are very good (and helpful). You'll also fine guidelines on building PrCs.

And Monte has two very good articles as well. (You can find them from the guidelines thread.)

In general terms though, PrC balance is basically a comparison between the abilities it possesses and the levels at which they're gained. Ultimately, this is why more powerful PrCs have tougher prereqs - to raise their comparable levels appropriately.

There are subtle dances around this central point, but that's what it essentially boils down to.

 

[bret]

Thanks for the pointers. It looks like a lot of it is guesswork and comparing the earliest level that an ability can be gained.

Thanks for the pointer to Monte's boards. I didn't realize he had a forum for this sort of thing, I will have to check it out.

 

[Michael Tree]

Also check out Monte Cook's two prestige design workshop articles, at http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly9.html and http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly10.html .

They're excellent articles (though I may be a bit biased since it's a PrC of mine that he discusses in the first one )

 

[S'mon]

Figure out which core class is most like the PrC, and most likely to take that PrC. Then answer the following questions honestly.

1) Completely leaving roleplaying and flavor questions aside, and thinking only in terms of mechanics, is there any good reason for a member of that core class not to take the PrC?

2) Think of what the core class is best at. Is the PrC better at doing that same thing at the same level?

3) If it is better at doing that thing, is it better in general, or only in specific circumstances or situations?

If the answer to the first question is "no," the class is too powerful, pure and simple.

If the answer to number two is "yes," you may have a problem, depending on the answer to number three. For instance, let's look at a combat-heavy PrC. If it's a better fighter than an actual fighter of the same level, you may have a problem. If it's only better in certain circumstances--when standing on a boat at sea, when using a spiked chain, or the like--you might be okay, so long as those circumstances aren't constant in your setting. If the PrC is better in general, or if the circumstances in which it's better are too common, than it's too powerful and not balanced.

And by the way... By my own personal estimation, a large number of the PrCs that grant spell advancement "as per prior class" every level are overbalanced. But that's just me.

I don't really have a problem with prestige classes being more powerful than core classes (especially the non spellcasting ones) - but a powerful prestige class should require sacrifices to attain to, eg you might need to be 10th level and have some pretty specific feats and skills to qualify.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't really have a problem with prestige classes being more powerful than core classes (especially the non spellcasting ones) - but a powerful prestige class should require sacrifices to attain to, eg you might need to be 10th level and have some pretty specific feats and skills to qualify.

(It probably goes without saying, but everything that follows is my opinion on the matter only; not telling anyone they're "wrong.")

Requiring sacrifices to obtain a PrC may delay entry, and such a PrC should indeed be more powerful than a PrC that you can get earlier--but it should not be any more powerful than a core class of the same level.

It might be better at some things, or more powerful in some ways. That's part of what PrCs are for. But when push comes to shove, and when all is said and done, two characters of the same level--be it 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th--should be more or less balanced, even if one's got a PrC and one does not.

Again, my opinion, of course. And PrCs should be good at something, or why take 'em? (Don't yet all me; I know lots of folks take PrCs for flavor or character reasons. But in a discussion about balance, we need to talk primarily mechanics. ) But to make them more powerful, I feel, gives us the opposite problem, of figuring out why everybody doesn't take them.

A 17th level rogue and a 17th level fighter and a 17th level wizard certainly don't all have the same combat ability, but when viewed through the broad lens of a game with combat and investigation and mystery and politics, they're all roughly balanced. A PrC shouldn't be any different.

 

[Chacal]

.... lots of wise things ...

I really agree !

Did you tried to balance full spellcasting PrC with these opinions in mind ? I'm really curious as I have made some attempts at this, but I'm still unsatisfied with them ( too much bookkeeping, mechanism alteration or just complications).


To stay a bit more on topic, I must add that I don't like heavy prerequisites as a balancing factor: I think it limits options and enforces stereotypes ( 2 characters entering the same PrC with heavy prereq are bound to be too similar).

Chacal

 

[Psion]

Regarding spellcasting classes specifically:

You shuold be more powerful than the classes in Tome & Blood and less powerful than the ones in the 3.5 DMG.

A lot of publishers made the mistake of providing a strong selection of class abilities and then not penalizing them with any level losses. This is a mistake.

At the same time, many publishers made PrCs that charge half of a spellcasters casting levels. You can't do that unless the compensation is significant, as spellcasting levels are usually a spellcaster's central features.

Typically, I feel that across 10 levels, a spellcasting prestige class should lose 1-3 levels. Further, they should almost never gain a spellcasting level at 1st level of the PRC; it's equivalent to front loading.

Occasionally, it is fair to allow full spellcasting progression if the character is forced to make less than optimal multiclassing decisions to get there. However, mystic theurge and arcane knight are a bit too generous on this score. When 3.0 came out, the matra was "versatility is power" and that was the excuse for multiclassing being the way that it was. It made multiclassing spellcasters too weak, but in 3.5 they went too far and totally forgot that versatility is power. What you need is something between the editions. IMNSHO.

Other than that, my perception is that balance is largely a matter of taste and what will appeal to one DM will be too strong or too weak for another. So long as you make a good attempt to be fair, that should be sufficient. If you make some players mad because the other wizard can do everything their character can and more, but only has a meagar drawback, you are going to have problems.

 

[Numion]

Are you sure balance is the appropriate word when nothing in roleplaying is ever balanced to begin with?

But strangely enough some things are more balanced than others.

Smarta$$