How many PrC is okay?

[incognito]

6 out of 15 PrCs: that's 40%.

BA-roken!

Seriously Capellan: and Arcane Trickster and the revised Elf-twinky Bladesinger PrCs aren't broken? Other PrC in that book are not intended for straight casters!

Hey, do you know if "Planeshifter" is +1 caster level, every level (MotP)??

Oh, the latest twist: For your amusement. My player came to me with a Paladin2/Sorceror6 "Spellsword" twink - his first request was for a Mithiril Breastplate (shocker), and a +1 Keen, Ghost Touch Long-sword.

Maybe your right Cap, maybe it's the circle I run with. 12 seemed like a lot of players. I can only think that you define twinky/powergaming/munkin differently? I look at it as character design with only, or mostly the intent at picking the idealized feats, skills, spells and class choices on character creation/advancement. IE: never take more than 1 level of ranger, never take more than 1-2 levels of Paladin, Always take Haste as 1 of your 2 wizard spells on attaining L5.

While none of these is individually an issue, it's the thought process. In a concession to balance the L4 spell Shout, I added a d6 damage, at player insistence! Who wants that!? I have a player that wants to become a Holy Librator, yet complains about taking cross class ranks in Know (religion)! I should explain that in my world, Holy Liberators are the disciples of Trithereon.

 

[Capellan]

Seriously Capellan: and Arcane Trickster and the revised Elf-twinky Bladesinger PrCs aren't broken?

The fact of whether or not a specific prestige class is broken is not really germane to the topic. I've never said that all PrCs are balanced, or that all should be allowed in any game. In fact, I've said exactly the opposite.

Hey, do you know if "Planeshifter" is +1 caster level, every level (MotP)??

No. 7 in 10. Personally, I think that a 10 level PrC should offer 5-8 spellcaster level increases (assuming it is a caster-focussed PrC, of course). Looking in more recent splatbooks that I've bought, that tends to be the way things are going: there are fewer "1 level every level" classes around (other people's experience could be different, though: there are many splatbooks I don't have)

Oh, the latest twist: For your amusement. My player came to me with a Paladin2/Sorceror6 "Spellsword" twink - his first request was for a Mithiril Breastplate (shocker), and a +1 Keen, Ghost Touch Long-sword.

The class combination I could live with, if the character background was sufficiently interesting, though I would probably insist on more levels of Paladin than that (say 5 - enough to get the special mount).

The Mithril Breastplate would be right out - I'm not about to get into another rules debate, but suffice it to say that I do not allow Mithril items of any kind into my game. It's normal +'d weapons and armour only.

As for the weapon he wanted, I'd probably let an 8th level character's weapon have either the keen ability, or the ghost touch ability, but certainly not both.

I can only think that you define twinky/powergaming/munkin differently? I look at it as character design with only, or mostly the intent at picking the idealized feats, skills, spells and class choices on character creation/advancement. IE: never take more than 1 level of ranger, never take more than 1-2 levels of Paladin, Always take Haste as 1 of your 2 wizard spells on attaining L5.

I'd agree with your definition, more or less. My own would be something like this:

Character design which deliberately exploits imbalances or flaws in the rules for the individual player's advantage, solely for the purposes of gaining that advantage.

To expand on this: if a player wants to play an "uber-archer" character, I have no problems with them taking a staright fighter to 5th or 6th level, picking all the bow-feats as they go, then swapping into the Order of the Bow Initiate. The player is pursuing a clearly defined concept, and - while the does have an uber-archer - they haven't pulled any seriously gamey tricks in the process. If they came to me with a Monk 1 / Ranger 1 / Fighter 4, on the other hand, I'd be looking at them askance.

Taking only 1-2 levels in a front-loaded class is usually a sign that something a dubious is going on.

While none of these is individually an issue, it's the thought process. In a concession to balance the L4 spell Shout, I added a d6 damage, at player insistence! Who wants that!? I have a player that wants to become a Holy Librator, yet complains about taking cross class ranks in Know (religion)! I should explain that in my world, Holy Liberators are the disciples of Trithereon.

Your Holy Liberator player needs to get a clue

 

[incognito]

Cap: more tomorrow - I'm sleepy...and at work...not a good combo

must...make...singular...concession: it is possible to make/find a PrC that is not front-loaded, or broken, and it's possible to find a player who does not try an pick the exact combo of feats/classes/etc to fufill the base prereqs.

Where some, posters and I depart ways is how often this truly occurs.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Not like this one hasn't been beaten to death yet, but hey, I just got back from vacation and wanted to comment.

The only time I've had problems with PrCs is when a player says something along the lines of "here's a PrC I just found in splatbook X or designed yesterday, I want my character to take it, as is, for my next level". No warning, no DM input other than "yes" or "no". Obvious warning sign: if they take the "useless" prerequisite Feat at the last second, or even worse, if they ask you to let them trade out a useful Feat they've had a while for the useless prerequisite.

Many of the splatbook PrCs are broken. I refer to any that give "+1 spellcasting level" at every level as prime examples. Practically any player-designed PrC will be overpowered. Yes, it's a sweeping generalization, but it's how I usually see it happening. It might not even be that the class is broken; it might just be a question of how the class interacts with the world that has been created. For example, Hunter of the Dead is a pretty balanced class, but if your campaign world is swarming with undead, this class becomes a bit too powerful compared to the rest of the party.

In a perfect world, the player would know at level 1 more or less how he wanted to progress. He and the DM would, together, tweak a PrC into something both felt was balanced and useful. (This might take some time) His character would naturally evolve in that direction. If the character changes his mind along the way, they still have time to change the PrC.

In a campaign I was playing, I had a Psion (Shaper). Actually, an Aristocrat/Shaper. Yes, I took an NPC class level.
I knew from the beginning that there weren't many high-level powers I wanted, other than Mass Cocoon, so I worked with the DM to create an Artificer PrC that had small spellcasting increase (originally a 5-in-10 PrC). It gave a lot of item-related (almost useless in combat) abilities at the odd levels. Then I posted it on this board for more feedback. In the end, I got a 5-level class that had most of the abilities I wanted, with NO spell progression, and that the DM was happy with. We integrated the class with the world ("Oh, that craft guild you've seen around town? Sure, they have some Artificers.") long before I got to the right level, which gave an adventure hook to start my training.

 

[incognito]

Many of the splatbook PrCs are broken. I refer to any that give "+1 spellcasting level" at every level as prime examples. Practically any player-designed PrC will be overpowered. Yes, it's a sweeping generalization, but it's how I usually see it happening.

Yea! Spatzimaus


(I am not alone!)

 

[Mordane76]

Many of the splatbook PrCs are broken. I refer to any that give "+1 spellcasting level" at every level as prime examples. Practically any player-designed PrC will be overpowered. Yes, it's a sweeping generalization, but it's how I usually see it happening.

In general... yes. I would agree that players tend to be self-interested, and wish to advance themselves into the spotlight over others. I would also agree that a lot of the PrC in WotC's books are suspect, and should see some modification before mainstreaming them into the campaign. But just because their first crack is bad, doesn't mean the second crack will be just as bad, after you've explained to them what is wrong with the first. I think what I don't like about what I keep hearing in tihs thread is this --

"Players are self-interested and will always be self-interested. No amount of coaxing or DM assistance can fix their broken ideas."

I can't disagree with this more -- I know my players. I know they're going to put up something slightly off-kilter. I expect it, and I think they do it just to see if I'm on the ball. I look at it, and hope that it works without my help and discerning eye, but I know it won't. But I also know that we can meet a middle ground, because I while I don't want my players to run roughshod over me, I also know that if I flat-out say no to their ideas, I'm breaking the major purpose behind gaming ---> It's a game, and it's supposed to be fun. If it's possible to realize a player's idea without causing the campaign to derail, then I will.

 

[Spatzimaus]

In general... yes. I would agree that players tend to be self-interested, and wish to advance themselves into the spotlight over others.
But just because their first crack is bad, doesn't mean the second crack will be just as bad, after you've explained to them what is wrong with the first.

Sorry, I should have explained further. It's not a question of greed. Or at least, it's not ALWAYS a question of greed. It's about the design process; the player knows what abilities he wants to gain, so those become the positives of the class. He knows what Feats and skills he'll take before he reaches the PrC, and so he'll make those the prerequisites. This isn't always a bad thing, since those abilities the character already had SHOULD be the things that the PrC builds on.
But, in my experience most people aren't very good at coming up with drawbacks for their own concepts. It's like this giant blind spot; many times, the "drawback" ends up being something the character wouldn't have wanted anyway (like telling a Fighter he can't use blunt weapons)

That's why you need the DM (or even another player) to step in and say "hmm, maybe it should require Feat XXX instead" or "no, +1 spellcasting every level is too much, how about 8/10?", and the occasional "Add CHA bonus to all weapon damage? Are you INSANE?". Not to be malicious, but to act as someone to haggle abilities against.

The Splatbook PrCs are very erratic. Some are overpowered, some underpowered, some too plain, some too strange. There are very few I'd add without modification. But, that's okay; they're good general concepts, and work well as starting points for campaign-specific variants.

It also helps that most of my group are people who like PrCs with straightforward entrance requirements but that require some sacrifice along the way. For example, a caster PrC that only gives spellcasting at 8 levels requires you to effectively "sacrifice" two levels of casting power in exchange for other abilities. Those classes that give spellcasting at every level effectively have no drawback for Sorcerers; once you meet the entrance requirements, you're a more powerful character than before, so unless the entrance requirements are REALLY steep, it throws off balance.

 

[incognito]

But, in my experience most people aren't very good at coming up with drawbacks for their own concepts.

ding. ding. ding. ding. ding!

Players are not evil, simply self (or character) thinking.

Would you design the spell Shout as a L4 spell, if Fireball was an existing L3 spell?

and for the players than have evil tendiencies, I assert than an indicator is desiring a PrC when near to leveling.



Add to that different campaigns have different aspects that are less, or more powerfull.

In the last campaign I was a player, the DM was fond of invisibility/hiding and sneak attack damage.

PrCs with uncanny dodge were in high demand.
Thus, PrCs submitted by other DMs should need modification before addition in one's campaign.

 

[Nail]

Originally posted by incognito
Players are not evil, simply self (or character) thinking.

Quite the monster of a thread, Incog! Good job.

Most of the problem, from my perspective, is from the phrase in the DMG that goes something like: "A character with a PrC should be slightly better than one without." It's in there, sure, but I don't agree with it.

Further complicating things, the 1st level of a PrC is not equivalent to 1st level of a core class. First level of a PrC is more like 6th to 7th level of a core class, ....and that's exactly where most of the benefits ("new toys") of the core classes drop off. (The spell casters and monk are significant exceptions.)

I guess I wouldn't feel so bad if I could see a more balanced give-and-take between the core classes and the PrCs. That is, "new toys" for the core classes up to 20th level, that must be relinquished to gain the "new toys" of a PrC.

The offending "weak at higher levels" classes would be:

• Barbarian (only marginally weak)
• Bard (again, only marginally)
• Fighter (very weak)
• Paladin (laughably weak)
• Ranger (very weak)
• Rogue (very weak)

(Obviously this is IMO.) I'm comparing here the core classes at levels higher than (shrug) 7th versus the PrCs these characters will have to pick up at these higher levels to remain viable.

Don't believe me? When have you ever seen a 20th level Rogue, straight up? Honestly, I'd like to hear that a few have done such a thing.

And as for the role-playing aspect of PrCs: I don't buy it as an arguement in support of their balance or utility. Character role and history is great stuff, but not necessary.

 

[incognito]

Hi Nail,

Well I really can't take credit. I pooped on Pirate cat, and that is bound to draw intereest...Poor P-Cat, takes enough flak as it is and I come trundleing through his "help me" thread like a 15 year old with an attitude problem...

(sigh).

Ok, On topic.

I agree with you about some of the classes:

Paladin, Ranger, Fighter arguably Barbarian

Bards and Monks are Attribute intensive - you need a very strong set of dice rolls, or generous point buy to play one effectively.

I, myself, play in an 18th level campaign with a FTR2/Ranger1/Rogue 15!!! I could've amde him a straight Rogue if I had been human...maybe.

The real bummer here is front loading in the core classes. This is one of the things that leads characters to A) muti-class B) PrC class.

We add to that the weak set of qualification for PrCs - many of which are meant to be "role-played"

Mix in the Problem with making a class balances - hey, if they can't do it for core classes, how to they expect to do it for PrC?

Shake welll with a healthy player desire for mroe pwoer/effectiveness...

Finally, stir with the phrase "A character with a PrC should be slightly better than one without." until the DM is ready to tear his hair out.

Poster's who have taken an advocate position to PrC are quick to point out that just because something CAN be broken, does not mean it has to be broken, and that players and a DM can work in peaceful harmony to devise a good fit.

I agree with that in theory - just like I agree with the concept of utopia, in theory. In practice, this is not what I see happening.

I should clarify: In practive I see this happening with players who have created characters at levels higher than 3, and in players who seek to attain a custom prestige class at high levels where feat, skill and BAB requirements are more easily met in a single level.

What's the solution? PrC are an interesting concept if done correctly. I am going the route of devising the story arcs such that all the character have = opportunity to showcase their skills, no matter what they might be. If those players fail to take the initaitive, then they are not guaranteed to GET the spotlight time, but at least there will be the opportunity.

So the uber blaster mage, with 26 CON, and uncanny dodge, and an attack bonus up the wazzoo will still feel like a fool at the Duke's tea party, or carefully eliminating only certain opponets in a crowded market, and the fighter will get his chance to fight in the anti-magic zone withe feats rule the day.

That and I step on my players when they get too power gamey...and I reward them richly when they role play with items, XP, and story rewards (reputation, title, etc).

PrCs, when appropriate, can be pursued through story only - although the non story pre-reqs still exist. And it's happy world so far.