Least favorite Prc

[TiQuinn]

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.

Hmm...a 10th level rogue with improved invisibility, stoneskin, haste, displacement, cat's grace, bull's strength, and shield who does an extra 5d6 damage and can cast teleport or dimension door to get out of any nasty situations isn't a potential threat in combat at 20th level? While his spells are not potentially the most powerful out there on the field of battle, they can enhance his own abilities greatly.

 

[Chun-tzu]

Hmm...a 10th level rogue with improved invisibility, stoneskin, haste, displacement, cat's grace, bull's strength, and shield who does an extra 5d6 damage and can cast teleport or dimension door to get out of any nasty situations isn't a potential threat in combat at 20th level? While his spells are not potentially the most powerful out there on the field of battle, they can enhance his own abilities greatly.

Notice that I said, "probably not a major threat in combat compared to any single class character" not "isn't a potential threat in combat at 20th level." There is a considerable difference between those two statements.

A 20th level Rogue is likely to have half those spells available in magic items (a min-maxed one will have them all), a better BAB, and a much higher sneak attack. And combat is not even the Rogue's forte.

Classic multiclassing (i.e., advancing in two or more classes at equal rates) is a sucker's choice. From a strict power play perspective, you are inevitably better off going specialist and/or taking prestige classes. Arcane Trickster makes the rogue/mage option much more favorable.

 

[BluWolf]

I have witnessed the multi-classed to death phenomenon in effect.

I played in a group that was converted from 2e. My character concept was that of an assassin that specialized in killing mages searching for his conscience (ala Gross Point Blank).

He ended up being a Ftr/Ill/Rog/Assassin.

At the upper mid levels he was very tuff and very flexible. By the time the party hit 15th lvl plus, he was more or less a pure support character. I couldn't hit as hard as the fighter (or clerics) and I couldn't cast offensive spells anywhere near the party mage.

He was a great scout and an increibly fun character to play but from a min/max gamer approach he was a bastard.

 

[dead_radish]

I like reading well written "fluff" (god, I hate the implied dimissiveness of that phrase) as it relates to a PrC,

Another term I've heard, that I quite like, is "creamy" - as in crunchy vs creamy PB.

I like it better than fluff.

 

[TiQuinn]

Notice that I said, "probably not a major threat in combat compared to any single class character" not "isn't a potential threat in combat at 20th level." There is a considerable difference between those two statements.

No, but you also said that a 10/10 Wizard/Rogue isn't an effective character. I think that's just plain wrong.

A 20th level Rogue is likely to have half those spells available in magic items (a min-maxed one will have them all)....

I think that's a big assumption to make.

Classic multiclassing (i.e., advancing in two or more classes at equal rates) is a sucker's choice. From a strict power play perspective, you are inevitably better off going specialist and/or taking prestige classes. Arcane Trickster makes the rogue/mage option much more favorable.

Yes, from a strict power play perspective.

 

[Chun-tzu]

No, but you also said that a 10/10 Wizard/Rogue isn't an effective character. I think that's just plain wrong.

What are you arguing? That straight multiclassing IS a viable option or SHOULD BE a viable option? Of course, it should be. Whether or not it is viable, that's debatable.

The question is not really whether a Wizard 10/Rogue 10 is effective or not (and note, there's a difference between not being effective, and being useless). The more important question is, how does a Wizard x/Rogue x compare to other characters of his level?

It's clear that a multiclass character loses out on power, and gains in versatility. I'm saying that it loses TOO MUCH in power, and the additional versatility is not generally sufficient compensation. I'm also saying that there's nothing wrong with using the prestige class mechanic to give them a boost in power, so long as the character is still less powerful than the specialist.

Does that make sense, or do we need to get into a serious debate about it?

 

[TiQuinn]

No, we don't need to get into a serious debate about it. Now that you've qualified what you meant by "effective", I understand your point. I still don't agree that the power given up outweighs the versatility gained, however. I think we approach the game a bit differently.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

As for the Arcane Trixter, I played one in my last game, and here's my take on it: It takes you a lot of extra levels to get to the class because the class gives you a lot of bonuses really fast. As for if this makes the class too powerful, I don't think so. I was extremely underpowered for most of the game, and just as I really started picking up abilities, we hit 10th level and the game ended. All in all, he was a GREAT load of fun to play, but the split of abilities doesn't make the classes mesh well until higher levels.

All in all, I really like prestige classes. I like that no two adventurers have to be anywhere near the same... and that the more you adventure the less and less often you see the same combination of classes or abilities. I admit that a lot of them are lax on roleplaying prereqs, but that's up to the DM to work on.

My least favorite? Probably Forrest Master from Faiths and Pantheons... it requires a ton of feats for a druidish class (or cleric, I suppose) and it doesn't give you that much in return. I think heirophant is just jipped though, if you ask me... no spellcasting and a few decent abilities where Archmage'd give his arcane counterparts obscene abilities AND more spellcasting.

 

[RobNJ]

With so many PrCs out there, and such low requirements, there's no reason why the vast majority of PCs and NPCs won't have some sort of PrC.

Just because I make a turnip stew, does that mean you are forced to eat it?

The controlling factor here is the DM. If the DM feels there're too many prestige classes, or certain prestige classes aren't special enough, the DM says, "No." Very simple.

Every spellcaster in my party was taking Spellcasting Prodigy, and then not even making it work for the concept. I told them, "You can't do that anymore. Unless someone has it as a central part of their concept, they cannot have the feat, because it's making the feat lose its meaning." I mean, if everyone's a prodigy, what does it mean to be a prodigy?

I think the videogamization of role playing has lead people to this mentality of, "Well, if it's in the book, it has to be okay." Nuh uh.

 

[RobNJ]

But when every new supplement that comes out has an entire chapter devoted to them, how optional are they, really?

Completely. Who says because they are published their use is compulsory? Lots of books also come out with new magic items and weapon types. That doesn't mean I allow a profusion of weapons and weird magic items in my game.