PrC w/ +1 level spellcasting - Downside?

[Mistwell]

As far as I can tell, PRCs were meant to be roleplaying tools more than anything else. It was a way of introducing an organization into a game.

While it might be a house rule, I have never seen a DM who didn't limit their players to one, and only one, PRC for their character. So this idea of taking multiple PRCs just to get some powergaming benefits out of the lower level powers and abilities of those PRCs is something I've never seen done (though I am sure there are DMs out there that let it happen).

There is always an entry cost to every PRC. If you think the +1 spellcasting is too powerful, make the entry requirements higher in your game (though I think most entry requirements really are worse than most people seem to think they are already).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Simply change every +1 spellcaster level PRC to +2/3 spellcaster levels, starting out with a no-casting bonus level.
ie
1 - no bonus
2 - +1
3 - +1
4 - no bonus
...
...

That way you always have to give up one level of spellcasting to take the class. In addition, you have to make a decision between 9th level spells, or the 10th level ability of the PRC.

And probably do that for most of the +1/2 spellcaster level PRC's as well. Most of them suck horribly.

Watch out for:
Classes which are actually aimed at secondary casters - only apply the above to primary casters. You might want to consider druids as a secondary caster in this respect - they do have to give up wildshape, which is quite a big loss.

Classes which have really crappy 10th level bonus abilities. The only one immediately springing to mind is the fantastic true strike once-a-day ability of the deepwood sniper, and since they don't give caster levels, it doesn't matter.

Classes which are more a case of substitution than actual bonuses. For instance, a wizard taking loremaster is probably losing as much as he gains, in addition to paying the entry price.

 

[Oni]

I would like to take this opportunity to once again put forth my theory that the real problem with balance and PrC's doesn't stem from the PrC's themselves. It is an a flaw built into the the base class design, the spellcasting classes should have been given some more interesting options as they advanced just so that they had something to give up when it came time to start looking at PrC's. The druid is a good example, multiclassing a druid actually involves some thought, they should have gone this route with the other casters. As it stands I think the only truly balanced +1 spellcasting level per level classes are ones that introduce certain weaknesses and drawbacks to the characters in addition to any useful powers gained from the PrC.

 

[bret]

As far as I can tell, PRCs were meant to be roleplaying tools more than anything else. It was a way of introducing an organization into a game.

While it might be a house rule, I have never seen a DM who didn't limit their players to one, and only one, PRC for their character. So this idea of taking multiple PRCs just to get some powergaming benefits out of the lower level powers and abilities of those PRCs is something I've never seen done (though I am sure there are DMs out there that let it happen).

There is always an entry cost to every PRC. If you think the +1 spellcasting is too powerful, make the entry requirements higher in your game (though I think most entry requirements really are worse than most people seem to think they are already).

I don't know of any GMs that prevent taking of multiple PrCs. If you intend to eventually go Epic, then such a rule could be a major drawback since the Epic rules have some PrCs that you can't even qualify for until you reach Epic levels.

I think that PrCs could be used to fill several different objectives.

• Make a weak concept more acceptable. Examples of this would include the lasher (make whips something more than a joke) and the Arcane Trickster (multiclassing hurts spell casting ability too much if you try to keep the levels even).
• Provide a special benefit to a group that exists in the GMs world. Examples of this are the Harpers from Forgotten Realms and the Wayfarer's Union from T&B. There are other examples.
• Get people to buy a splat book for the munchkin appeal of the new PrCs. There are a lot of people that talk about the 'crunchy bits' of a book, they generally mean the new feats and PrCs that provide new powers.
• Give a certain race a unique set of abilities. The Dwarven Defender, Arcane Archer, and Spelldancer are examples of this.

The problem is telling when something is just bumping up the power on something that would otherwise be too weak a choice from something that gives too much benefit to those who take a certain PrC.

It should also be noted that many PrCs are actually easier to get into than they first appear of someone is using Forgotten Realms. You have the Educated and Cosmopolitan feats that can turn that cross-class skill into a class skill. Very nice for the Sorcerer who wants to go Elemental Savant.

 

[Chun-tzu]

I would like to take this opportunity to once again put forth my theory that the real problem with balance and PrC's doesn't stem from the PrC's themselves. It is an a flaw built into the the base class design, the spellcasting classes should have been given some more interesting options as they advanced just so that they had something to give up when it came time to start looking at PrC's. The druid is a good example, multiclassing a druid actually involves some thought, they should have gone this route with the other casters.

I agree. Balancing PrCs is better done through revision of the core classes. For a longterm campaign, why take a spellcasting PrC that loses 5 spellcasting levels, and caps you at Level 7 magic? What PrC abilities could possibly compensate for loss of the highest levels of magic?

 

[Stalker0]

I think if they had just given PrC the multiclassing penalties like normal classes, everything could have been fine. Give them all the cool stuff in teh world, but xp penalties are xp penalties.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Mistwell: I've never seen a DM do that. Some PrCs just aren't MEANT to be the only thing you ever do (especially the 5-level ones).

Stalker0: That just wouldn't work. Unless you were a single-class character taking your race's favored class, you'd always have an XP penalty for taking a PrC until you gained a half-dozen or more levels in it.
Besides, XP penalties just aren't a good balance tool. A level 15 character is a level 15 character, no matter how long it took them to get there. If PrCs are substantially stronger than core classes, then one of two things needs to happen:
> The PrC is nerfed (or the core class is improved)
> or, accept that everyone will take a PrC that is superior to their original class. This one screws up CRs, though.

Oni: I'd agree with that, except that the solution would be to increase the power of the spellcasting classes. How else do you give the Sorcerer something extra to give up without lowering his spellcasting abilities? All he HAS is his spellcasting, really.
Same goes for melee classes. A Fighter loses Feats. In most cases, the benefits of a 10-level PrC are worth 5 Feats (and presumably they're abilities matching with the Fighter's combat style). Barbarians lose practically nothing (minor DR, uncanny dodge, and the improvement of Rage). And so on.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm playing a cleric and was looking over the Contemplative PrC from DotF - its prerequisites are almost nil, especially compared to something like the Loremaster. With such minimal prerequisites and +1 level spellcasting, this PrC seems a bit unbalanced.

The prereqs are almost nil? That is only true if your DM takes the Special requirement at face value and assumes that all it means is that you hav to have seen a servant of your deity. That requirement is most definitely meant to be roleplayed out.

I have a cleric / contemplative in my campaign (link in the sig). He hasn't been unbalanced by any means.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell: I've never seen a DM do that. Some PrCs just aren't MEANT to be the only thing you ever do (especially the 5-level ones).

You are the second person to say that, even though it is in every single comprehensive "Advice to DMs" column I have seen. It's supposed to be a PRESTIGE class. You don't choose more than one of those. It's your chosen profession. I know that isn't the rule, but every DM I know plays that way (and that is a lot of DMs).

PRCs were NEVER meant to be something a player takes a couple of levels in just to get some abilities, and then switch to another one. Never. Every designer at WOTC would tell you that.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I don't know of any GMs that prevent taking of multiple PrCs.

Well, now you know one... over the internet, anyway.

Most PrCs have a role-playing requirement, making it difficult to take more than one PrC.

Secondly, playtesters rarely play multiple PrCs with one characters. Mixing PrCs will cause balance issues...