Prestige Classes - which are broken?

[Mistwell]

Hey, what is all this hating about? Hong is not teh suck!

 

[James McMurray]

Tellerve: Some prestige classes (such as Fang of Lolth, Temple Raider of Olidammara, and the like) are most definitely there to add flavor to a character.

Others, such as Archmage and Weaponmaster, are there to increase a character's power in a specialized area. In other areas those characters will generally be weaker than characters of a base class.

Finally, there is the Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, and Eldritch Knight. These guys are there to plug multi-classing rules holes.

I don't think that there is a hard and fast rule of "what a Prestige Class should be." It all depends on the class.

 

[James McMurray]

Hey, what is all this hating about? Hong is not teh suck!

When people are consistently rude, they tend be get ignored by those who don't want to be bothered. I'm sure hong both knows and is ok with this. In fact, it probably gives him a little thrill of superiority every time someone starts to ignore him.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

First, a PrC can't be broken by being too weak. The term broken, in reference to game balance, refesr to something that is so powerful it "breaks" the game.

Second, I think some people need to reevaluate what "balance" is for.

If a character finds something that makes that character insanely powerful at that one thing, nerfing it for no other reason isn't the sign of a good DM.

Balance is there to make sure everyone has fun. If one character consistantly outshines all other characters, then something needs to happen.

If this insanely powerful character doesn't take fun away from any of the other characters, leave it alone. If a rogue finds a way to always disarm a trap, its not going to take fun away from the other people. If a mage finds a way to kill oponents so quickly the other players don't get to do anything, then something needs to be done.

And lastly, if a character is causing problems with people out of game, an ingame solution that hasn't been talked about is the cowards way. Draining the cha of a sorcerer that is powrful, when it hasn't been discussed with the player, is a damn good way of loosing a player. The DM shouldn't screw with characters without at least talking with the player about it.

--Friendly DM Spikey

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Tellerve: Some prestige classes (such as Fang of Lolth, Temple Raider of Olidammara, and the like) are most definitely there to add flavor to a character.

Others, such as Archmage and Weaponmaster, are there to increase a character's power in a specialized area. In other areas those characters will generally be weaker than characters of a base class.

Finally, there is the Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, and Eldritch Knight. These guys are there to plug multi-classing rules holes.

I don't think that there is a hard and fast rule of "what a Prestige Class should be." It all depends on the class.

I've never seen the Raider, but the Hand of Lolth looks fine to me.

The weaponmaster is a bit stronger than a fighter, IMO (they're weaker at ranged attacks) but the archmage 3.0 is a lot stronger than a mage. Yes, you lose out on feats, but you gain something much better. You lose out on spell slots, but your lower level spell slots become so much better that it's not really a cost.

Disintegrate was, I think, was overpowered but not broken. However, an archmage using Disintegrate was way over the top. Disintegrate goes through most defenses that protect against Finger of Death (except Displacement or a very high touch AC), and when used by an archmage it practically ignores the universal defense.

There never should have been a prestige class called archmage (and it's abilities worked very differently from the PrC designer's intentions). To be an archmage, you need to do the following:

1) Role-play.
2) Gain levels.

Then you gain the following benefits:
1) Higher-level spells, boosting your save DCs.
2) Higher Int, boosting your save DCs.
3) Better items, which might boost your save DCs.
4) More feats, which might boost your save DCs.

Congratulations, you are now a high level mage, and you don't need to take a prestige class just to be a high level mage.

 

[Pax]

Do you often speak using "iow" as shorthand?

The shorthand? No. The phrase it's shorthand FOR? Absolutely.

If you write something as you would speak it, you would use less shorthand.

Not true. I use shorthand because I type a post about as fast as I woudl be speaking it ... which is why I tend to use boldface and italics for emphasis, instead of colors, fonts, and the like.

Now, it's my turn to ask something: do you always jump in and nitpick where it's not needed?

hong asked:
One might ask, if a class has its most notorious ability removed, whether it's really the same class anymore. I mean, yes, there's a saying about giving your left nut to get something, but it's just a _saying_, man.

Personally, while Spellpower was a very attractive component of Archmage, I find several of it's other abilities very interesting too. Mastery of Counterspelling (especially for a sorceror-archmage in an Epic game, with the feat [Epic Counterspell] ...) could prove a lot fo fun. And for a typical blaster-mage, Mastery of Elements and Mastery of Shaping are great abilities (no more worrying about facing red dragins when you're a fire mage ... and no more worries about catching allies in yoru AoEs). Arcane Reach actually has uses, for touch-spell intensive spellcasters.

IOW, Archmage (the example at hand) has more speaking for it than the one, abusable ability. My personal fix was, none of the three stacked, and each had the next-lowest one as a prerequisite. *poof* problem solved.

And, by the by, to refer back to one of yoru earlier responses: IMO, it's much less "lazy" to fix something broken, than just ban it from your game.

James McMurray advises:
If you go to his profile you can set him to ignore. I've recently done it and it has saved me quite a bit of annoyance, given that his posts rearely make sense, and even when they do they are too rude for my tastes.

Thank you. Tomorrow morning, I think I shall do exactly that (I'd do it now, but I've just responded to him above ...).

Tellerve asks:
Anyways, James, are you of the opinion that PrCs are supposed to be better or just add flavor to a campaign to represent a certain racial/cultural or whatever class. The reason I ask, is that many PrCs are made to be in my opinion superior to straight core classes. I don't necessarily think that is bad, as long as you can't get it till higher then I feel it should be warranted to have some extras.

Well, I'm not James, but: I think a PrC shoudl be far and away better than a Core class, within the PrC's narrow specialty. IOW, a Lasher should be THE whip-wielder, period, no exceptions.

Outside that narrow specialty, a PrC should be inferior to any core class or combination of core classes. The lasher shouldn't be as good a 2H sword-swinger as a straight fighter (and since the lasher probably lacks the feats to shine with a 2H sword, he presumably is).

The concept is, IMO: you have to meet certain prerequisites to enter the PrC; once you've paid the price of admission by going down that specialised road to begin with, it's not unreasonable for you to be rewarded by being a (small) bit extra-good at that specialty.

Spikey Freak asserts:
First, a PrC can't be broken by being too weak. The term broken, in reference to game balance, refesr to something that is so powerful it "breaks" the game.

Actually, my understanding of broken is "not within reasonable balance range of other comparable game elements". Some spells are brokenly STRONG (and should climb in level and/or be nerfed), others are brokenly WEAK (and should drop in level and/or be strengthened). The power curve goes both ways, in essence.

Second, I think some people need to reevaluate what "balance" is for.

If a character finds something that makes that character insanely powerful at that one thing, nerfing it for no other reason isn't the sign of a good DM.

Balance is there to make sure everyone has fun. If one character consistantly outshines all other characters, then something needs to happen.

I agree. The corrolarry is, if one player is consistently outshined by all other characters, then something also needs to happen.

If this insanely powerful character doesn't take fun away from any of the other characters, leave it alone. If a rogue finds a way to always disarm a trap, its not going to take fun away from the other people. If a mage finds a way to kill oponents so quickly the other players don't get to do anything, then something needs to be done.

... unless the other players are happy with that, of cours.

And lastly, if a character is causing problems with people out of game, an ingame solution that hasn't been talked about is the cowards way. Draining the cha of a sorcerer that is powrful, when it hasn't been discussed with the player, is a damn good way of loosing a player. The DM shouldn't screw with characters without at least talking with the player about it.

--Friendly DM Spikey

Hallelujah, brother. Nothign ticks me off more than a GM who won't give me credit for not wanting only to powergame and grab all the power I can get. If a GM says "X abilityof yours seems like a problem, it's detracting form teh fun of the group ... let's figure out a solution that doesn't screw you, either" -- I'm inclined to work with him.

OTOH, if the GM says "You powergamed, so now you have to pay the price. Ability X is now gone!" -- I'm inclined to quietly pack my books, get up, and leave -- never to return.

And always keep in mind: the GM's fun is just as important as any single player's fun. So if a GM comes to me and says "Dammit, I can't figure out how not to get dropped by <insert ability here>, and it's driving me crazy" ... I'll actually SUGGEST a few ways, even if said ability is one possessed solely by my character.

I'd rather the game was fun and continued for months to come ... than "win" in some petty way.

...

And that's how all classes, feats, and spells -- all classes, not just the PrC's -- need to be handled: so long a they promote mutual fun, they're fine. The moment anyone has less fun due to a class, spell, or the like ... something needs to be looked at more closely.

 

[AuraSeer]

There aren't many 'broken' problems that can't be fixed with the judicious application of permanent ability-draining monsters. A PC has too much Charisma, and his spells are irresistable? OOPS, he just drank a poison that makes him lose 2 points permanently. (Or at least until he successfully completes a very entertaining quest...)

Since you're going that far in making up new rules just to screw the players, why stop with ability drain? Every time a PC starts getting on your nerves, just say that a meteor falls out of the sky and squashes him dead. It'll be a more permanent solution, and only very slightly more annoying to the players.

 

[James McMurray]

I've never seen the Raider, but the Hand of Lolth looks fine to me.

I can't think of what they do right off hand. They just sprung to mind when I thought of "flavorful."

The weaponmaster is a bit stronger than a fighter, IMO (they're weaker at ranged attacks) but the archmage 3.0 is a lot stronger than a mage. Yes, you lose out on feats, but you gain something much better. You lose out on spell slots, but your lower level spell slots become so much better that it's not really a cost.

With the nerf to Spell Power, this shouldn't be as big an isue now. Also, the loss of spell slots is nothing to write off. Especially 7th+ slots, which could be used for Limited Wish, Otto's Irresistable Dance, and Shapechange.

Disintegrate was, I think, was overpowered but not broken. However, an archmage using Disintegrate was way over the top. Disintegrate goes through most defenses that protect against Finger of Death (except Displacement or a very high touch AC), and when used by an archmage it practically ignores the universal defense.

Again, the nerf to spell power should assuage these concerns. This of course assumes that you are talking about saving throws when you say "universal defense."

There never should have been a prestige class called archmage (and it's abilities worked very differently from the PrC designer's intentions). To be an archmage, you need to do the following:

1) Role-play.
2) Gain levels.

Then you gain the following benefits:
1) Higher-level spells, boosting your save DCs.
2) Higher Int, boosting your save DCs.
3) Better items, which might boost your save DCs.
4) More feats, which might boost your save DCs.

Congratulations, you are now a high level mage, and you don't need to take a prestige class just to be a high level mage.

true, to be a high level mage you don't need a prestige class. However, if you want the powers inherent in being "the ultimate practcioner of arcane magic" you need a prestige class.

Your argument against the Archmage could be applied to almost every prestige class out there.

 

[reapersaurus]

I don't use prestige classes much in my games, but I do keep hearing people saying there are problems with this one and that one. I particularly hear about the Halfling Outrider from Sword and Fist.

So, in your opinions, which are broken and why?

My troll-meter's going off here.

 

[Particle_Man]

To me, the duelist seems too weak, unless you play radically against type. The abilities you gain by not using armour or a shield don't outweigh the benefites of using armour and a shield.

On the other hand, a dwarf in adamantium full plate and a heavy shield could be a fairly strong duelist, if he is willing to wait until 7th class level for the extra defense which does stack with armour. Not too overpowered, since you have to invest 7 levels into the class. But this goes against the concept of the duelist in a major way.

On the too-strong side, I would say the Hospitaler in Dotf. A cleric keeps spell progression and turn undead ability, AND gets bonus feats, lay on hands, and remove disease. And a cleric could tune into this gravy train after 7 cleric levels, at the cost of 2 feats, 2 cross-classed skills, and a nonchaotic alignment.

On the too silly side: Oozemaster (Motw). Need I say more than the name?