Should Prestige Classes Advance Spellcasting?

[Votan]

"Should Prestige Classes Advance Spellcasting?"

This is something that I have been thinking about for a while.

Consider:

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak at low levels and strong at high levels.

Prestige classes typically involve trading weakness at low levels (investing in suboptimal skills and feats) in exchange for power later on. Therefore, they tend to accelerate the power curve of the arcane casters.

Melee classes, on the other hand, start out strong and weaken relative to casters later on. They are the ideal classes to benefit from this sort of strategy.

Further, different casters have different degrees of strength. +1 caster level advances a Ranger, a Bard and a Cleric in very different degrees of strength. This means that, without an awkward prerequisite list, caster advancing prestige classes need to be balanced against the full, nine-level casters and are, therefore, suboptimal for partial casters of all kinds.

Early on this was a patch for certain concepts (Fighter/mage, Wizard/Cleric) but, at this point, realistic options exist for these caster combinations (Duskblade Class, Arcane Disciple Feat) that make this less imperative.


I am not arguing against classes with their own caster properties (like the Vigilante from Complete Adventurer or the Divine Crusader from the Complete Divine). This is an excellent way to go because it can be carefully and internally balanced.


Now, it is true that this would mean arcane casters and clerics would rarely take prestige classes. But this is good for the game at two levels. One, it means full casters would need to focus on their casting to be the best at it. Two, it would flatten the power curve of the full casters slightly.

Meanwhile, skilled and melee classes could continue to collect prestige classes which would help with the power lag that they see at higher levels.

Finally, the worst of the prestige class abuses involve massive boosts to casters (Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Incantrix, etc . . .) and we would not have to worry about them. The argument that further full casters would take prestige classes is spurious because that would part of the point -- prestige classes tend to accelerate power (on average, few people take a class to become weaker) and the full casters do not need to be strengthened at high levels.

It's simple, it balances the game better, it removes a series of awkward PrC balance problems and it makes intuitive sense (to be the best as casting it must be your absolute focus).

What do others think?

EDIT: A mistake in phrasing was caught

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak at low levels and strong at high levels.

Melee classes, on the other hand, start out weak and gain strength later on.

That looks like the same hand to me...

-Hyp.

 

[Votan]

That looks like the same hand to me...

-Hyp.

Yep. :\

Fixed now, though.

A Fighter/Barbarian/Swashbuckler is a very strong party member at level 2 but not so impressive at level 16 as compared to the power level of equivantly optimized clerics and wizards.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Now I certainly agree that magic-users get more powerful than melee types at high levels, but I don't think banning prestige classes is the way to go about it. Instead, I would argue that in a fantasy setting it wold make more sense to give the melee classes some kind of magical ability themselves, or more fighting prestige classes that give them real bonuses to mobility and survivability so they can more easily deal with threats at high levels.

And no, don't think I am talking about Bo9S, that was a seriously flawed attempt to give melee types more power.

Instead, melee types ned some kind of way to negate magic around htem, either by dispelling with weapon blows, or some kind of limited anti-magic field, perhaps one or two levels of spells, something like spell immunity, or such. Not sure how to do it, but I do beleive it needs to be done.

Perhaps as a quick fix to some of the more broken caster prestige classes (Initiatie and Incantrix being major offenders), you would lower the spellcasting. Especially Incantrix, that one really needs to be 7/10 progression, 10/10 is just sick.

 

[wayne62682]

A Fighter/Barbarian/Swashbuckler is a very strong party member at level 2 but not so impressive at level 16 as compared to the power level of equivantly optimized clerics and wizards.

How does one be a Fighter/Barbarian/Swashbuckler at level 2?

Seriously, if PrCs didn't advance spellcasting than no spellcaster in their right mind would take one; as it stands most spellcasting PrCs are crap anyways because they don't provide full spellcasting, and so are only good for the occasional dip. Getting rid of spellcasting progression entirely.. maybe you WANT people to stay single-classed spellcasters?

 

[Votan]

How does one be a Fighter/Barbarian/Swashbuckler at level 2?

Well, I meant Fighter or Barbarian or Swashbuckler. Ideally this applies as well to Paladins and Rangers (but they have spellcasting) and could be extended to Warblades, Swordsages, Monks and Crusaders.

The melee guys -- deadly at level 2; speedbumps at level 16.

Seriously, if PrCs didn't advance spellcasting than no spellcaster in their right mind would take one; as it stands most spellcasting PrCs are crap anyways because they don't provide full spellcasting, and so are only good for the occasional dip. Getting rid of spellcasting progression entirely.. maybe you WANT people to stay single-classed spellcasters?

It's not a bad outcome. Prestige classes can really help make a skill or melee character blossom and overcome some of the weakness that can be crippling at high levels.

But if losing spellcasting makes taking prestige classes too weak than that is, in and of itself, an interesting piece of data.

This is especially true of the arcane ones. The only penalties you can give a sorcerer (I am assuming familar costs are negligible for almost all cases) for a prestige class are costs to enter the class. This makes the Sorcerer much more powerful at level 10 (when they are already pretty tough) at the cost of making them weaker at level 2 when they are being outshone by the other classes.

Maybe "pure class" wizard or cleric is a good benchmark.

But, as it is, it is nearly impossible to design a prestige class to advance Paladin spellcasting that isn't either exceedingly weak or doesn't have clerics scheming to sneak in.

Psionics has an interesting idea where the 1st level of a prestige class autmoatically costs a manifester level in nearly all cases. This makes it possible to actually place abilities in said prestige class.

 

[Nifft]

A Swashbuckler is strong at level 3, and then quickly ceases to be a Swashbuckler (or is RP'ing an Int penalty...)

Cheers, -- N

 

[frankthedm]

"Should Prestige Classes Advance Spellcasting?"

A PRC should almost never give full caster progresion. Full progresion should be the reward for those who remain faithful to their class. Only a PRC that reduces overall character power should be full progresion, like the alienist.

 

[Maldor]

so are you planing to make the full casters stronger at low level otherwise the melee is strong at low level and stays strong never pay the price of their power were a low level cast is weak and would not get strong of sometime

plus a prestige class is suposs to be more powerful in its focused area then a caster that never spent their assest to focus

that said some prestige classes are over powered at full casting so take away a level or two of casting to bring it into balance to take all spellcasting would be to limit character ideas because no one will take a prestige class and weak the casting classes to the point that many of the melee calsses would look overpowered side by side

 

[EyeontheMountain]

A Swashbuckler is strong at level 3, and then quickly ceases to be a Swashbuckler (or is RP'ing an Int penalty...)

Cheers, -- N

What is the Int penalty for attempted thread hijacking?