Least favorite Prc

[rounser]

Interesting thread. Some comments on other's comments:

In summary, on prestige classes: Thumbs up on the concept, thumbs way down on the execution.

Yep. Same with kits, but that didn't stop people ragging on kits as the if the concept was broke rather than the execution, and inventing "something better" that doesn't even allow you to follow a character concept from first level. This is because one of the philosophies behind PrCs are that they're supposed to be a carrot that players work towards, and reward them for sticking with the game rather than starting a new character, as opposed to nasssssty kits which "rewarded" restarting. I think we have enough carrots with magic items, levels and XP....at least let players go with a rules-backed concept from 1st level, rather than when they meet the pre-reqs and the rules "decide" it's time...

I just don't get excited about PrC's, and I think there has been way too much emphasis on them in almost all d20 products, including Dragon magazine.

Yup. I suspect that PrCs' other main purpose is simply to give WotC and d20 publishers something more to sell to gamers.

I hope for some kit/PrC hybrid come 4th ed, which goes back to advantages/disadvantages rather than pre-reqs so that they can be taken at any time in the campaign which is appropriate (as opposed to planning ahead for levels on end) and extensive guidelines given for balancing the suckers (including simple stuff like "don't balance stuff with roleplaying disadvantages") with something perhaps equivalent to the CR systems' quantification of the power of abilities so that DMs and publishers alike can hit the mark a little more often...

Inevitably, the more of these things which get produced, the weaker the system that integrates them gets because the scope of underpowered/overpowered PrCs or kits strays further from the median through the odd bad design decision. Given that the core rules were playtested more than any other RPG before, there's definitely a limit to the idea of all-the-prestige-classes-you-can-eat.

Grog, I basically agree with you in that I think PrC's are too plentiful in 3e products. But then, I prefer more fluff, less crunch, so that probably puts me in the minority of d20 gamers.

You're not alone. I like adventures and setting material described at encounter level - that's where the real game is, and it saves me time.

I suspect the more fluff they put on a PrC- the less dm's that will be interested.

Indeed - a lot of fluff gets ruined by being tied to crunch, and a lot of crunch gets ruined by being tied to fluff.
I'd like to see them kept seperate more often - for instance, I think that monster books are far better off being totally generic rather than being tied to a particular world. I think "slot into your world" cities are better without names nor macro level assumptions about how your world works...and the same goes for PrCs. In fact...

Not just tearing down the existing fluff, but seeing how tightly the fluff is interlaced with the mechanics- and then trying to build campeign-based fluff around what is left.

...someone beat me to that point.

As many people as there are who agree with you, there are an equal number of people who would have seen the spell-less assassin and said "why doesn't he have any freaking spells??????"

I have to err on the side of keeping spells special boons granted by a class being all about magic rather than being granted to any old class as "bonuses", and the ranger and assassin do nothing to help this.

To which my reply is, why does it matter? Almost universally, PrCs can be used to replicate a concept for a specific character, completely free of ties to ANY organization.

It's annoying to see "War Wizard of Cormyr" when you look up the abilities, and can challenge suspension of disbelief by forcing you to try to not associate your character with Cormyr. I think that a superior approach would have been called it just plain "War Wizard", genericise the abilities and added a paragraph on the end that customises it to FR as they do in Monsters of Faerun. That way, you get to have your fluff cake and eat your crunch.

Now, the Spell Dancer from Magic of Faerun seems pretty silly to me. Hard for me to picture some cat hoofin' it across the battlefield before unleashing the perfect metamagicked fireball.

Apparently, the authors of that PrC agreed. No evocation or necromancy can be used with the spelldancing ability. Can you imagine summoning, enchanting, or alteration related to dancing magic? I know I can...

Most of the Prcs from magic of faerun are extremely generic. They just tack on a few different feats and improve a few more and thats it.

Maybe if you're only looking for kewl powerz (TM), but the concepts (Mage Killer, Spelldancer, and that gnomitech one in particular) provide powerful campaign flavour. They're very strong concept-wise, IMO, which is sort of half the point...

 

[the Jester]

I don't like prc's that completely overshadow the base classes. There should always be a reason to stick with a base class; a prestige class should offer an alternative- maybe even a more powerful alternative within a narrow focus, but not something that's flat-out better.

My least favorite- cuz you lose nothing and get abilities I can't possibly justify, especially impromptu sneak attack- is the arcane trickster. Yeah, it's hard to qualify for, but once you do there's no reason at all to go further as a rogue or wizard.

 

[rackabello]

All quotes originally posted by rounser
I suspect that PrCs' other main purpose is simply to give WotC and d20 publishers something more to sell to gamers.

I can't agree with you on this exactly, Rounser. I'd say that the OGL was designed so that there'd be more of everything is being produced for the game, using the official ruleset, than ever before. More PrC's, more monster books, more spells, feats, sourcebooks, etc. There is more to choose from and, inevitably, more to reject.

I hope for some kit/PrC hybrid come 4th ed, which goes back to advantages/disadvantages rather than pre-reqs...

I wouldn't mind seeing a combination of advantages/disadvantages and pre-reqs as a means to balance PrC's. I can only think of one or two PrC's with disadvantages tied to the abilities gained (aside from those inherent in halting or slowing advancement in one's primary class[es]). I find disadvantages like the Alienist's phobia or the Ghost Walker's anonymity to provide both game balance and roleplaying opportunities.

Apparently, the authors of that PrC agreed [with Rackabello's attempt to poke fun at fireball slinging tapdancers.] No evocation or necromancy can be used with the spelldancing ability.
bracketed text mine

Ouch. You certainly have me there. My two cents' worth is now on sale for half price

 

[rackabello]

My least favorite- cuz you lose nothing and get abilities I can't possibly justify, especially impromptu sneak attack- is the arcane trickster. Yeah, it's hard to qualify for, but once you do there's no reason at all to go further as a rogue or wizard.

Here's another example of the break between concept and execution folks have mentioned earlier in the thread. Personally, I love the idea of the Arcane Trickster, but as it stands the ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack are almost gravy when you're already essentially advancing without penalty in two classes at once.

 

[Larry Fitz]

Oozemaster

Seriously, the Oozemaster? This should be a disease, not a PrC.... come to think of it... is it a PrC? Also if you need a PrC to fight evil in the scarred lands, then maybe the problem isn't with PrC's? Just kidding about the scarred lands there... I prefer PrC that are cultural or RP derivative, I play in a campaign (around 18th level characters) where there are currently only two PrC's out of eight characters (ably GM'd by Donatello, Thanks Captain) I run a low level Twin Crowns campaign (around 4th level) where only one PC out of 7 is grooming his character for a prestige class. My point is that the core classes still rule the day, PrC's are for flavor and creativity. If everyone ate pistachio ice cream with butterscotch chips, then vanilla would be exotic, but they don't. The plurality still eat vanilla and the world is not full of Oozemasters...


"Oo Like Sinky?" Captain Slinky the Kobold Sorcerer to his human captors after a few days of common speech lessons.

 

[Chun-tzu]

Personally, I love the idea of the Arcane Trickster, but as it stands the ranged legerdemain and impromptu sneak attack are almost gravy when you're already essentially advancing without penalty in two classes at once.

The Arcane Trickster is actually pretty well-balanced.

You need 4 rogue levels to qualify for it (Decipher Script is an exclusive skill), and losing 4 levels of spellcasting is a serious hit. You can maybe cut that down to 3 levels by taking Loremaster or something, but then you've got another bunch of prerequisites to meet for that class.

As for the Rogue aspect, you're cut down to 4 skill points per level and a reduced skill list (no Use Magic Device for a mage/rogue?). You will probably need to continue putting points into Spellcraft and maybe Concentration or Knowledge: Arcana, giving you even fewer points. And your BAB is barely better than a straight wizard's, seriously compromising your combat effectiveness despite the sneak attack progression.

A straight mage or straight rogue is probably a more effective character than an Arcane Trickster, so the PrC works effectively for combining the two.

 

[ThomasBJJ]

Forsaker by a large margin

 

[drnuncheon]

The Arcane Trickster is actually pretty well-balanced.

You need 4 rogue levels to qualify for it (Decipher Script is an exclusive skill), and losing 4 levels of spellcasting is a serious hit. You can maybe cut that down to 3 levels by taking Loremaster or something, but then you've got another bunch of prerequisites to meet for that class.

As for the Rogue aspect, you're cut down to 4 skill points per level and a reduced skill list (no Use Magic Device for a mage/rogue?). You will probably need to continue putting points into Spellcraft and maybe Concentration or Knowledge: Arcana, giving you even fewer points. And your BAB is barely better than a straight wizard's, seriously compromising your combat effectiveness despite the sneak attack progression.

What I lke to do for "multiclass PrCs" like this one and the Spellsword is compare them to what you'd have if you just multiclassed (since that's obviously what you're going for anyway.)

Assuming a rog4/wiz5 leveling as wiz5/rog5 vs arcane trickster 10:
BAB: +6 vs +5 (adv: multiclass)
HD: 5d6 + 5d4 vs 10d4 (adv: multiclass)
Skill: 40 rog + 10 wiz vs 40 trickster (adv: multiclass)
Saves F/R/W: +4/+5/+5 vs. +3/+7/+7 (adv: trickster)
Sneak Attack: +3d6 vs. +5d6 (adv: trickster)
Spellcasting: 5 lvls vs. 10 lvls (adv: trickster)
Other: Unc Dodge + familiar + metamagic feat vs. ranged legerdemain, impromptu sneak attack (adv: trickster, IMO)

I think that with the full sneak attack and full caster progression, the trickster is too good compared to the multiclass - almost no wizard/rogue would ever want to be anything else, whether they were a thief, a spy, an assassin...I would trade 5 hp and 10 skill ranks for 5 levels of spellcasting in a heartbeat.

The spellsword, by comparison, comes out almost equal between the PrC and the multiclass - the PrC has a couple of perks that you can't get in any other way, but loses some of the flexibility of the core classes it's based on - which is as it should be. Some ftr/wizards would want to take that path and others would not.

To balance the arcane trickster, I'd make the sneak attack +1d6 every 3 levels and the spellcasting every other level. The trickster would still get better saves and his cool abilities (ranged legerdemain & impromptu sneak attack). If that strikes you as too harsh, consider 6 skill points/level instead of 4 as well.

J

 

[ForceUser]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ugh.. wounded pride

They overshadow the core classes because there are so many of them and they are so easy to get into. If PrCs were fewer/harder to get into, they wouldn't overwhelm the core classes like they do now.

That is actually the DM's call, my friend. Change the requirements. Make them as tough to get into as you like.

 

[Chun-tzu]

I think that with the full sneak attack and full caster progression, the trickster is too good compared to the multiclass - almost no wizard/rogue would ever want to be anything else, whether they were a thief, a spy, an assassin...I would trade 5 hp and 10 skill ranks for 5 levels of spellcasting in a heartbeat.

That's exactly the point, actually. You're assuming that a Rogue 10/Wizard 10 is an effective level 20 character; I'm thinking it's not. Your best spells are 5th level, you have a modest selection of skills (only a handful of them maxed out), and you are probably not a major threat in combat compared to any single class character.

This class makes up for that some of that gap, but you're still not as effective as a single class character. In 3E, the most powerful characters are the ones who specialize: Fighters, Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers. Multiclass characters and rangers come in way behind, sacrificing power for versatility. I don't mind multiclass characters or rangers being slightly more powerful, because they're still no match for the specialists. As always, your mileage may vary.