Should Prestige Classes Advance Spellcasting?

[Votan]

An unintended concequence of removing some of the +1 caster level of Prc's is that they will then become dip classes, unless the prereqs are too onerous then they won't be used. If the first level is not adding to caster level very few will take it. If it is after that then it will be a dip until that point. Give it a few months and there will be a feat or two to add a caster level as well. Just look at builds on wizards optimization boards. Unless a PrC offers something outstanding past a dead caster level it will only be a dip, if used at all. Even wizards mostly benifit from PrC's as many give bonus feats or better powers. Can't comment on clerics because I never play them and when I DM I houserule the class extensively, and open healing to all casters as a universal school.

I think the classic solution to this, if you want something less extreme than what I am proposing in my inital post, is to make the first level of a prestige class never add caster levels. Psionics did this almost perfectly. This makes people think carefully being enrolling in a casting prestige class. It also solves the problem of dipping into many caster prestige class to massively improve saves and grab cool first level abilities.

I don't see the problem as PrC's. The problem is sucky base classes compared to PrCs. There is a MAJOR shift in desgin mentality between the recent base classes and the original 3.0/5 base classes. Everyone here is letting the tail wag the dog. Start with the problem base vs PrC. If the base is solid and offers some way to be flexible and PrCs are used to specialize in a certain area you will see much less PrC use.

I agree that the newer classes are much better designed to make this happen less. The extensive use of prestige classes was not a foreseen consequence of early 3rd edition. But, with the current base classes, a cleric or sorcerer often suffers less to prestige class than a Barbarian (who loses cool class features)!

Also, full casting progression is a feature of many prestige classes that are strictly better than the base classes (Incantrix, Planar Shepard, Abjurant Champion, Master Specialist); these would be less attractive if they had more than opportunity cost to enter.

As a patch until base classes are fixed, something about this would help.

I would also like to see something that makes it possible for both a Paladin and a Cleric to enter a prestige class without one being too weak and the other too strong.

 

[satori01]

Not to side track the thread...but any style that requires 3 or your 7 Feats you gain throughout 20 character levels, to be considered minimally effective I think counts as feat intensive.

Again a greatsword wielder just needs Power Attack and Improved Critical to be GTG. A bow wielder needs 3 feats just to start.

A dwarven cleric could have Power Attack and a spear at level 1. The same cleric would be 9th level before he could have PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Rapid Reload for the Crossbow.

Feat Intensive.

 

[Darklone]

I think the classic solution to this, if you want something less extreme than what I am proposing in my inital post, is to make the first level of a prestige class never add caster levels. Psionics did this almost perfectly. This makes people think carefully being enrolling in a casting prestige class. It also solves the problem of dipping into many caster prestige class to massively improve saves and grab cool first level abilities.

Seconded.

I would also like to see something that makes it possible for both a Paladin and a Cleric to enter a prestige class without one being too weak and the other too strong.

Seconded. Paladins should simply get cleric spellcasting progression every 2nd level.

 

[Darklone]

Not to side track the thread...but any style that requires 3 or your 7 Feats you gain throughout 20 character levels, to be considered minimally effective I think counts as feat intensive.

Again a greatsword wielder just needs Power Attack and Improved Critical to be GTG. A bow wielder needs 3 feats just to start.

A dwarven cleric could have Power Attack and a spear at level 1. The same cleric would be 9th level before he could have PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Rapid Reload for the Crossbow.

Feat Intensive.

For a non-fighter: Certainly, three feats is expensive. For a fighter: not so much.

 

[hong]

Not to side track the thread...but any style that requires 3 or your 7 Feats you gain throughout 20 character levels, to be considered minimally effective I think counts as feat intensive.

Again a greatsword wielder just needs Power Attack and Improved Critical to be GTG. A bow wielder needs 3 feats just to start.

A dwarven cleric could have Power Attack and a spear at level 1. The same cleric would be 9th level before he could have PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, and Rapid Reload for the Crossbow.

Feat Intensive.

If we're talking about physical combat (melee or ranged) I don't really see a problem with using lots of feats. Fighters _are_ supposed to be feat monkeys, after all. Now sure, some feats are wimpy and not worth taking, but the general principle of using feats to represent exceptional combat skill is sound.

 

[Votan]

The same is true re: Melee guys in my 16th level game. Honestly I have not seen that many spell casters over time use PrCs. A melee type just needs to have a +1 BAB per level to be effective...and frankly losing a point or 2 of BAB is not that devastating, as to hit bonuses accrue at a startlingly easy rate.

The same is not true for caster level. A Wiz, Cleric, or Druid can lose out of 3 levels and still get 9th level spells. Most spontaneous casters can only lose out on 2 levels.

Is a PrC like Argent Savant even worth losing 1 spell casting level?
Some classes like Abjurant Champion are just too powerful, if you are playing an elf, why not take the class, it is win/win...but outside of a few clearly optimal choices...most spell casting PrC fit a niche, or add an extra burden to consider in qualifying to the already burned player of a spell caster.

Even something like the Master Specialist is not a given, in my opinion. A player has to decide to play a specialist wizard, which is not an easy decision for most people, and while the PrC gives out nice benefits, you have to forgo the Bonus feats, which are quite powerful.

The Wizard feat cycle of 3,5,6 is pretty defining at low level, and a nice boost. Getting Skill Focus: Spellcraft and a minor power is not always optimal. Moreover, the proliferation of Specialist Spontaneous Caster Classes like Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler, makes Evocation, Illusion, and Necromancy specialists harder sells, and PrCs in some cases harder sells.

Very few spell casting PrC are going to give the skill points of a Beguiler, or the powers and Advanced Learning Options of a Dread Necromancer. The Warmage has some PrC options, but in many cases, is going to go down to a D4 hp when using a PrC.

Druids almost never go into a PrC,(why bother to), Clerics seem to gravitate towards RSoP, which frankly is as much a boon to the DM as it is to the players.

Let us consider the worst case scenario: the Sorcerer. There is a cost to enter a prestige class as a Sorcerer in that they need the skill points and feats spent.

Let us consider a prestige class called the incantrix:

Requires:

Concentration: 4 ranks, Knowledge (Arcana) 8 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranks
Feats: Iron will, any one metamagic feat
Spellcasting: 3rd level Arcane
Special: May not have abjuration as a banned school.

Except for Iron will (taken at level 6) there are not a lot of heavy requirements here.

At level 7 you then get a free metamagic feat (parity) from the 1st level of Incantrix.

You go on to get:

3 more metamagic feats
Reduced cost to apply metamagic to spells
Adding metamagic to wands
Instant metamagic (avoiding preparation or increased casting time)
Ability to mess with other caster's spells

It is true that you will like this more if you use a lot of metamagic. But a Sorcerer taking this is strictly happier than a pure class sorcerer for almost any build.

 

[Votan]

Agreed! This is true in my epic game as well.

Interesting. My highest level played was 17th so I have no epic experience. I noticed that a careful caster was a complete monster compared to the melee types at that point. But it might have been something that corrects itself in higher level play.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

Let us consider the worst case scenario: the Sorcerer. There is a cost to enter a prestige class as a Sorcerer in that they need the skill points and feats spent.

Let us consider a prestige class called the incantrix:

Requires:

Concentration: 4 ranks, Knowledge (Arcana) 8 ranks, Spellcraft 8 ranks
Feats: Iron will, any one metamagic feat
Spellcasting: 3rd level Arcane
Special: May not have abjuration as a banned school.

Except for Iron will (taken at level 6) there are not a lot of heavy requirements here.

At level 7 you then get a free metamagic feat (parity) from the 1st level of Incantrix.

You go on to get:

3 more metamagic feats
Reduced cost to apply metamagic to spells
Adding metamagic to wands
Instant metamagic (avoiding preparation or increased casting time)
Ability to mess with other caster's spells

It is true that you will like this more if you use a lot of metamagic. But a Sorcerer taking this is strictly happier than a pure class sorcerer for almost any build.

Again the problem is NOT the Incantrix PrC. The problem is the sorcerer class sucks. (That said I am playing one right now and having fun but there are some MAJOR annoyances with it).

There is ZERO reason for any sorcerer stay as a sorcerer. If you want a familiar it is better to take the feat at some point as all your caster levels stack, and get the fast metamagic ability from complete mage instead. Then you get normal metamagic for a few times a day and all your cster levels for the familiar. Basically paying a feat to get the ability to make metamagic normal CT 3+int modifier a day.

When 3.0 came out we were going from lots of players playing 1e as well as 2e of course. The classes were fine at the time (except for the ranger ). The play style was still very similar to 1e/2e. There were not man PrC's the main sorcerer one didn't even advance spell casting.

I took a break from D&D for the last few years, never played 3.5 till now. The change in design and play mentality HAS changed. You can see that in all the new base classes. With the release of all the suppliments there are tons of feats and PrC's Multiclassing became more of the norm, sticking with one class became mostly a thing of the past. The posters I see who advocate not multiclassing and taking multiple PrC's are generally those who are in more of a 1e/2e mind set (not that this is a bad thing to each his own, just not my cup of tea). I personally like to optimize, I also put in a great deal of time into character background and role playing but can't stand to play a character who is not as good as they can be at what they do. Doesn't mean they have to be the best character in the party or the best in their role, but for the concecpt I have in mind.

I see this starkly from running a 3.0 game taking a few years off then getting back into 3.5 after the all this time. I pick up the new books and the new classes are MUCH more focused. Most of the new base classes make taking a PrC a very difficult proposition. There is MUCH to loose.

You can also see that the designers realized that spont casting was good, but not the end all be all of arcane magic. All it needs to balance it is a smaller list of known spells and a slightly delayed progression. Quicken spell is ALWAYS going to be powerfull as the currency in D&D is the number of actions you have. Most of the new spont casters have a focused list and even know a shocking number of spells to cast, at the cost of flexibility. AND they have good abilities to keep a player interested in the class.

The sorcerer for instance which is my pet peave and to a slightly lesser extent the wizard. I come from 1e/2e so I am personally a bit more comfortable with sticking with a single class or maybe 2. BUT there has to be a design reason to do so. And it seems like WotC is in agreement. Both these classes and at least the fighter as well need some class abilites at appripriate levels that are good enough to warrent staying with the class. As it stands there just aren't any. Nearly all the people I have seen post with 1 class builds especially from these 3 classes is either a 1e/2e holdover or is new and doesn't have a grasp of the rules yet. And I'm sure we have all seen posts debating optimized vs non optimized characters, a well put together character is more powerfull in a significant way.

It is more work to rework the base classes and more work adapting adventures to it which is probably WHY people are looking at 'fixing' the PrCs. Changing the PrC's is certainly less disruptive of the campaign mostly from the ammount of work on the DM's part. But I think this will tend to piss off players and is like taking an asprine for a sinus headache. It does alittle to fix it but you took the wrong pill. Go to walmart and pick up some claratin. Sure takes more work and you have to pay a bit more than just asprine, but you will feel better.

When if 3.5 revised/4e comes out. I think that some of these issues WILL be taken care of.

I'm nt sure what to do about the fighter, and I'd have to think about the wizard, but for the sorcerer I would use Monte Cooks, from The Eldritch Might 2, but use the standard spell list. Too many suppliments and too much monkeying around with Montes. Maybe put in the fast metamagic as a 14th - 16th level (or so) ability and make quicken spell cost 5 or 6 spell slots for a sorcerer. Add some bonus heratige or similar feats at certain levels.

Wizard I'd have to think about more, but adding some decent class features would make all the differance.

The problem is the unforseen methods of play (and all the playtesters were used to 1e/2e play style) and the changes this caused. In a core only game it is not as much of a problem though. But WotC's best interests is not a core only game. I think the new base classes are a foreshadow of what the revised core classes will be. Something mechanical to make people stay in a single class longer and not PrC as much. Then published materials will support this and there will be less work for DMs to convert.

So if you want to fix the problem fix the base classes. Most PrCs are fine. The incantrix for example is an example of a PrC that makes you WANT to stay for the whole 10 levels. At most add a Spell Focus Abjuration to the reqs. Problem ones are like Dragonslayer who are only ever used as a dip class, and to qualify for other PrC's. And if a PrC makes a character weaker it won't be used and is a WASTE of effort. If you have to give up feats and skill points then the damn PrC BETTER be better than the base class. Spending a feat you would never take otherwise or is substandard especially for a caster is a sacrifice and should be rewarded.

 

[Votan]

Problem ones are like Dragonslayer who are only ever used as a dip class, and to qualify for other PrC's.

My favorite example of this is the Mindbender; one level is so good you figure that there has to be a typographical error. Ten levels is so bad you wonder if it would ever be played. It's a great PrC for one level dips and nothing else.

Your comments on the Sorcerer are well taken and the Rapid Metamagic from PhB2 pretty much buried any reason to put 20 levels into sorcerer unless you have an unusal build that uses all feats and skill po0ints and, by accident, doesn't qualify for anything else.

But even a class like the Abjurant Champion is a bit strong. I see many players take Combat Casting if they start at level 1. If you are an elf, Sorcerer 10/Abjurant Champion 5 is strictly better (at every level) than Sorcerer 15. By so much that it is not funny (BAB, hit points, saves and abilities are all increased).

But, you are correct. A class like the Beguiler or the Duskblade is much harder to prestige class.

 

[Seeten]

I come from 1e, and so I'm even less comfortable in one class. I was ALWAYS a fighter/mage or a fighter/mage/thief in 1e. Maybe I was one of the weird ones who was always an elf fighter/mage and sometimes tacked thief on...but 1e had TONS of multiclassing, it isnt new to 3e.