Should Prestige Classes Advance Spellcasting?

[FireLance]

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.

What you can do is make a distinction between paladin spellcasting and cleric spellcasting, and have the PrC advance paladin spellcasting at the rate of 1/level and clerical spellcasting at the rate of 1/2 levels. Characters with levels of both paladin and cleric have to decide what they want to advance at each level, as normal, and if they want to advance cleric spellcasting, they will have to forego spellcasting advancement for one level in order to get +1 level of cleric in the next.

 

[Wish]

I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that melee types aren't needed at high levels. In most of the high level games I've played (levels 14-18 approximately), the focus has been all about the melee types. The casters have plenty to do, but the heavy lifting is done with melee. The casters buff, provide mobility, battlefield control, and soften up the badguys. It's all about getting a melee type in position to make a full attack with the highest bonus possible while softening or absorbing the blow of the counterattack.

 

[the Jester]

In my epic game, the melee guys rule.

I disagree with your premise, and I see no need to penalize prestige classes in order to balance them. I think low-level wizards are balanced against low-level fighters these days; they have more hp, many many more spells, etc.

On the other hand, I do feel that too many prcs give full spellcasting advancement that shouldn't. A wizard 5/prestige x should be of equal power, overall, to a wizard x+5. Some prestige classes break that rule imo, such as the master specialist- there is neither opportunity cost nor drawback to taking the class; it's all butter.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

I think the base classes need to be redone in the mold of Scout, Duskblade, Etc. There is no reason NOT to multiclass. Especially the sorcerer.

If DM's and designers want to limit PRC use then there should be some mechanical reason to stay in the base class. Who wants to PrC as a duskblade or a scout or the other new base classes.

The sorcerer is particularly problemmatic here, not to mention that though spont casting is good it is not the end all be all. It is balanced with the delayed spell levels. They don't even get the metamagic bonuses of a wizard, and a familiar WHOPPEDY DOOO. It is better to use an alternate ability and get rid of the familiar or if you want one take the feat that grants one but stacks all caster levels not just Sorc.

Multi classing and PrC's even multiple PrC's are party of D&D now. Way diff then previous editions. If DM's and designers want to change or limit it then they need to rework the base classes a bit. And rework some PrCs to be 3-5 level with less useless feats/skills. This limits the early loss of power with sub-optimal feats, and if there was insentive to stick with the class more would

The fighter and sorcerer both are in serious need of updating. Wizard and cleric less, but still need some work. Unless you want specialization why bother to go past fighter 2? And for sorc level 5 or 6? Most fighter builds take 2-4 levels of fighter depending on whether you want weapon specailization. And no sorc build takes it past 6. For good reasons. The only reason not to multi or prc is if you are stuck with a 1e or 2e anti multiclassing mindset, or want to rp a suboptimal character then complain about optimised characters (this is what happens in my exp.)

PHBII does a great deal for higher level fighters but the class could do more.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

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 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.

 

[Piratecat]

In my epic game, the melee guys rule.

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

 

[green slime]

Biggest problem IMO, is the lack of appeal to stay a fighter class for all 20 levels. There should be more incitements to stick to the path. Who would do so in their right mind today?

 

[satori01]

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.

 

[satori01]

Biggest problem IMO, is the lack of appeal to stay a fighter class for all 20 levels. There should be more incitements to stick to the path. Who would do so in their right mind today?

See PHB II. Weapon Mastery, Weapon Supremacy, Bounding Assault, there are plenty of reasons to remain a Fighter. Moreover it does not take alot of feats to be decent at melee. Power Attack, 2 handed Weapon, + Improved Critical are really all you need.

Even if you were limited to just PHB feats, you could easily have those 3 feats by 8th level, and be working on the Archery feat chain as well, which is extremely feat intensive. It may not seem sexy, but a smartly built Fighter with the Attitude of "The right tool for the right job", is applicable, and powerful in almost all circumstances....except for maybe a battle of wits.

 

[Darklone]

Archery is feat intensive? Do you need more than PBS, Rapid Shot and perhaps Precise Shot ?