Please rate the Loremaster
- Thread starter smetzger
- Start date
Spatzimaus
First Post
I gave it a 10. Not because it's incredibly broken, but because there's simply no downside to the class for the people it was intended for.
We've had this discussion in other threads, I'm sure someone can find them. Basically, I'm one of the people who doesn't like the "+1 spellcasting level at every level" classes. PrCs, IMO, should be straightforward to get into, with prerequisites being things you'd already want to take, but where the class itself has drawbacks compared to your original class.
Once you qualify for Loremaster, you get full spellcasting progression. Your class skill list is better than what you had before (including all Knowledge skills AND Speak Language), you get 4+INT skill points per level, and some nice extra bonuses. The class gives two extra languages (yawn), a toned-down Bardic Lore ability, Identify/Legend Lore at will, and five Secrets. Most Secrets are conservatively the equivalent of half a Feat, except of course for the "Free Feat" one, so figure that you gain three Feats out of the deal.
So, the only balance factors are the prerequisites.
For a Wizard, you'll get two metamagic/item creation Feats at levels 1 and 5. That means if you use two of your three (or four for Humans) general Feats for another metamagic and Skill Focus, you've met the Feat requirements.
The Knowledge skill requirement is easy.
On the other hand, you sacrifice two extra bonus Feats in the 10 levels of the class, so you're trading one general and two bonus Feats for the benefits of the class (which includes three Feat-equivalents and more).
For Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer, it's a lot harder to get in (since meeting the Knowledge skill requirement means level 17), but it becomes pretty easy if you multiclass. A Cleric X/Bard 1, for example, can now meet the Knowledge requirement. Or, use Aristocrat. Or, add the Educated or Cosmopolitan Feat from the Forgotten Realms.
I've played a Human Sorcerer Loremaster before. The most painful part was actually spending 20 skill points to raise the Knowledge skills; Sorcerers don't get that many since they don't need INT. Spending 30 for cross-class on one would be out of the question.
Bards are somewhere in the middle. They can get the Knowledge skills easily, but the Feats hurt a bit and their spell progression is lower. They also don't gain as much since their Bardic Lore is already better than what a Loremaster gives.
Bottom line: it's really only intended for one class, and for that class there's no real downside. Its flavor implies that it's meant for Diviners, but an Evoker can take the class and end up a stronger character.
From a powergaming point of view it's a great class. For me, it's exactly how I think PrCs SHOULDN'T be designed.
We've had this discussion in other threads, I'm sure someone can find them. Basically, I'm one of the people who doesn't like the "+1 spellcasting level at every level" classes. PrCs, IMO, should be straightforward to get into, with prerequisites being things you'd already want to take, but where the class itself has drawbacks compared to your original class.
Once you qualify for Loremaster, you get full spellcasting progression. Your class skill list is better than what you had before (including all Knowledge skills AND Speak Language), you get 4+INT skill points per level, and some nice extra bonuses. The class gives two extra languages (yawn), a toned-down Bardic Lore ability, Identify/Legend Lore at will, and five Secrets. Most Secrets are conservatively the equivalent of half a Feat, except of course for the "Free Feat" one, so figure that you gain three Feats out of the deal.
So, the only balance factors are the prerequisites.
For a Wizard, you'll get two metamagic/item creation Feats at levels 1 and 5. That means if you use two of your three (or four for Humans) general Feats for another metamagic and Skill Focus, you've met the Feat requirements.
The Knowledge skill requirement is easy.
On the other hand, you sacrifice two extra bonus Feats in the 10 levels of the class, so you're trading one general and two bonus Feats for the benefits of the class (which includes three Feat-equivalents and more).
For Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer, it's a lot harder to get in (since meeting the Knowledge skill requirement means level 17), but it becomes pretty easy if you multiclass. A Cleric X/Bard 1, for example, can now meet the Knowledge requirement. Or, use Aristocrat. Or, add the Educated or Cosmopolitan Feat from the Forgotten Realms.
I've played a Human Sorcerer Loremaster before. The most painful part was actually spending 20 skill points to raise the Knowledge skills; Sorcerers don't get that many since they don't need INT. Spending 30 for cross-class on one would be out of the question.
Bards are somewhere in the middle. They can get the Knowledge skills easily, but the Feats hurt a bit and their spell progression is lower. They also don't gain as much since their Bardic Lore is already better than what a Loremaster gives.
Bottom line: it's really only intended for one class, and for that class there's no real downside. Its flavor implies that it's meant for Diviners, but an Evoker can take the class and end up a stronger character.
From a powergaming point of view it's a great class. For me, it's exactly how I think PrCs SHOULDN'T be designed.
I think trading 3 feats for 3 feats is a wash. There are better prestige classes one could pick. There is very little difference between a wizard and a loremaster. If you happen to qualify for the Loremaster then there is no harm in taking the class but its not worth going out of your way for. I think this is the average prestige class. You get as much as you give up plus a little flavor twist. The downside is almost non-existent (familiar progression) but the upside is almost as non-existent from a powergamer point of view.
Gez
First Post
1) How well it stacks up with other classes.
Below average. 4. To be honest, I think the waste of a feat on Skill Focus: Knowledge: Arcana (the least useless Knowledge you can blow that feat on, IMO) is a good price for the gained abilities, that seems nice on the paper, but are not that prevalent in games. (See the monk syndrom.) Even if another feat can be gained later, this single requirements has been enough in my experience to turn most character concepts out of that class.
2) How often a PC will go with this class.
Below average. 4. The shadowdancer, for example, is a more popular class. For mage-style prestige class, incantatrix and elemental savant come more frequently in character project.
3) How often an NPC will go with this class.
Below average. 3. This class is very flavorful, but is really made for a small elite, the people who value knowledge and wisdom for their own sake, rather than for power. It is a small minority that may feel the calling to this class, and those that fit the requirements are even less common. IMC, outside of some gnome diviners or clerics of knowledge, nearly noone is a loremaster.
4) How 'fun' it is to play this class.
Average. 5. One's idea of fun is different from another's. I, personnally, would love to play one, if only my wizard who met the prerequisites could get into play again and gain some levels... But it's a question of gaming style -- you won't do kick-in-the-door dungeoncrawl with a loremaster. So, if your idea of fun is Beer the half-orc barbarian with whirlwind attack or Pretzel the smelly dwarf fighter with great cleave, the loremaster may not be for you.
5) How much this class adds to the game.
Above average. 7. I say that as a DM fleshing out the world and assigning class levels to NPCs. The grandmaster of a spynetwork, the elder of the secluded mystic community, they are truly themselves thanks to this class. On a more PC-centric game, not much.
Below average. 4. To be honest, I think the waste of a feat on Skill Focus: Knowledge: Arcana (the least useless Knowledge you can blow that feat on, IMO) is a good price for the gained abilities, that seems nice on the paper, but are not that prevalent in games. (See the monk syndrom.) Even if another feat can be gained later, this single requirements has been enough in my experience to turn most character concepts out of that class.
2) How often a PC will go with this class.
Below average. 4. The shadowdancer, for example, is a more popular class. For mage-style prestige class, incantatrix and elemental savant come more frequently in character project.
3) How often an NPC will go with this class.
Below average. 3. This class is very flavorful, but is really made for a small elite, the people who value knowledge and wisdom for their own sake, rather than for power. It is a small minority that may feel the calling to this class, and those that fit the requirements are even less common. IMC, outside of some gnome diviners or clerics of knowledge, nearly noone is a loremaster.
4) How 'fun' it is to play this class.
Average. 5. One's idea of fun is different from another's. I, personnally, would love to play one, if only my wizard who met the prerequisites could get into play again and gain some levels... But it's a question of gaming style -- you won't do kick-in-the-door dungeoncrawl with a loremaster. So, if your idea of fun is Beer the half-orc barbarian with whirlwind attack or Pretzel the smelly dwarf fighter with great cleave, the loremaster may not be for you.
5) How much this class adds to the game.
Above average. 7. I say that as a DM fleshing out the world and assigning class levels to NPCs. The grandmaster of a spynetwork, the elder of the secluded mystic community, they are truly themselves thanks to this class. On a more PC-centric game, not much.
Spatzimaus
First Post
Let me rephrase: yes, 3-for-3 is a wash. That is, the Secrets alone cancel out the Feat downsides of the class. You get 2 extra skill points per level, which, over 10 levels, makes up for the 20 Knowledge ranks, and that assumes you wouldn't have spent points on Arcana or The Planes before. So, there is no true cost to taking the class, because the class reimburses you. In the case of the Feats it's not even up-front vs. eventual, since two of the three "lost" Feats are the ones you would have gained at levels 5 and 10 as a Wizard.
So, on top of that wash, they get a slightly better class skill list (Speak Languages and Use Magic Device, but no Craft skills), an effective +2 to your Will save due to multiclassing, the Bardic Lore, Identify, and Legend Lore abilities. Oh, and two languages.
There are better PrCs out there, no question. But, this class is absolutely better than the core class in every way, and to me that's a big no-no. It's not even a question of flavor. The ideal PrC, to me, would be specialized. The Loremaster seems to have been intended for Diviners, but it didn't carry through to the abilities.
If the Loremaster basically added another school specialization (Divination) with the restricting of an additional school (let's say Necromancy), then it'd have a downside worth balancing.
(Hmm, come to think of it, that's a decent idea for a PrC... let the Wizard pick a second specialty at the cost of even more schools)
But, as it is, if you're in a campaign where the DM doesn't like splatbooks but allows the DMG PrCs, you'd have no reason NOT to take the Loremaster.
So, on top of that wash, they get a slightly better class skill list (Speak Languages and Use Magic Device, but no Craft skills), an effective +2 to your Will save due to multiclassing, the Bardic Lore, Identify, and Legend Lore abilities. Oh, and two languages.
There are better PrCs out there, no question. But, this class is absolutely better than the core class in every way, and to me that's a big no-no. It's not even a question of flavor. The ideal PrC, to me, would be specialized. The Loremaster seems to have been intended for Diviners, but it didn't carry through to the abilities.
If the Loremaster basically added another school specialization (Divination) with the restricting of an additional school (let's say Necromancy), then it'd have a downside worth balancing.
(Hmm, come to think of it, that's a decent idea for a PrC... let the Wizard pick a second specialty at the cost of even more schools)
But, as it is, if you're in a campaign where the DM doesn't like splatbooks but allows the DMG PrCs, you'd have no reason NOT to take the Loremaster.
Number47
First Post
Remember that the feat and skill cost is a high one that must be continually paid with reaping the benefit until minimum level 8 (I believe). That is a balance right there, too. I think Loremaster is a little under-powered as a PrC and about par with simply advancing without a PrC. Of course, my interpretation of Prestige Classes is that they should be a little more powerful or a little more diverse in ability or a little more strange and special than standard classes. With that in mind, Loremaster doesn't fulfill it very well.
Merlion
First Post
[From a powergaming point of view it's a great class. For me, it's exactly how I think PrCs SHOULDN'T be designed. [/B][/QUOTE]
Just honestly curious, what do you think the link is between powergaming and the loremaster? And is there anything about them aside from the +1 spellcasting level that you feel is part of who prestige classes shouldnt be designed?
Myself I think that yes its a very easy class to qualify for for the right characters(Ohh and just for accuracies sake, Clerics can qualify as fast as wizards...they have Knowledge(Arcana) and Knowledge(Religion) both as class skills...and I cant think why they dont have Knowledge(The Planes) and of course a Cleric with the Knowledge Domain has all Knowledge skills as class skills), but the things you gain are useful in certain situations and to certain types of characters/players. The class gives almost no combat advantages. From a roleplay/storyline point of view its great...and IMHO really neccsary with the concept of prestige classes..a class for those whom knowledge is there main pursuit, that gives them abilities for gaining and using knowledge, especialy of magic and the unusual. Its also the only prestige class in the DMG for a single classed spellcaster(something I hope and think is being changed.)
I gave it a 9
Just honestly curious, what do you think the link is between powergaming and the loremaster? And is there anything about them aside from the +1 spellcasting level that you feel is part of who prestige classes shouldnt be designed?
Myself I think that yes its a very easy class to qualify for for the right characters(Ohh and just for accuracies sake, Clerics can qualify as fast as wizards...they have Knowledge(Arcana) and Knowledge(Religion) both as class skills...and I cant think why they dont have Knowledge(The Planes) and of course a Cleric with the Knowledge Domain has all Knowledge skills as class skills), but the things you gain are useful in certain situations and to certain types of characters/players. The class gives almost no combat advantages. From a roleplay/storyline point of view its great...and IMHO really neccsary with the concept of prestige classes..a class for those whom knowledge is there main pursuit, that gives them abilities for gaining and using knowledge, especialy of magic and the unusual. Its also the only prestige class in the DMG for a single classed spellcaster(something I hope and think is being changed.)
I gave it a 9
Gez
First Post
Spatzimaus said:
Eventually, you get reimbursed. In the meantime, you aren't. And if your campaign end at level, say, 9, you don't benefit much. If your campaign end at level 20, on the other hand, the benefit reaped are not that huge.
Spatzimaus said:
Not necessarily. It's a class for lore masters. Who are not necessarily seers or prophets.
Spatzimaus said:
I personally don't like the specialization mechanism. Don't find it elegant.
Spatzimaus said:
See the Incantatrix, it's exactly that.
Spatzimaus said:
You do. The highest your level, the less vital your feats and skills individually are. But at lower level, frankly, it majorly sucks to lose a feat to boost a skill that get nearly never rolled and that is already maxed out.
Plus, the spells to know are an expansive requirement too. No problem for a diviner or a cleric, but for a wizard with another focus will have to pay for these spells in time and money (and the price for copying spells in a spellbook are huge), and for a sorcerer or bard...
RigaMortus
Explorer
Gez said:
The fact that you need to know 7 divination spells (one of which must be 3rd level or higher) suggest to me that it was inteded for a diviner. What does divination have to do with Lore knowledge anyway? That seems like a strange requirement. But anyway... Of course, anyone who qualifies could take it, not just a diviner, much the same way anyone who qualifies for a Virtuoso can be that, not just a Bard.
Similar Threads
