Spellcaster Prestige Classes: Balanced?

[Apok]

Like the Spellsword?

That's one example. I like Spellsword because it gives Wizards an enhanced BAB, a good Fort & Will save and ASF reduction for Armor. In this case, the caster level tradeoff is worthwhile if a tad severe. Without this PrC, making a classic Fighter/Mage is an expensive proposition with little Return on Investment. For Bards, it rocks the house.

 

[Apok]

Should classes be created that appropriate, or that are ballanced? If it takes some strange pre-reqs for a class to be ballanced, I think the rules should do it.

I don't see why they can't be both. To date, I think all of the PrCs that I have seen have had prerequisites that match the concept of the class well enough (with maybe a few exceptions here and there) but what really irks me is when they throw in things like Toughness, Iron Will, or Run when it has absolutely nothing to do with the PrC concept, except perhaps in some half-heartedly contrived way so they can "maintain balance." This just makes me sick.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

If the prerequisite feats make sense for the concept of the PrC, why the hell should it matter weather they are "good" or not?

Because "concept" has zero to do with "game balance" (which is what we are discussing.) Prerequisites are there for game balance purposes.


Two examples:

1) PrC that grants +1 caster level. It's prerequisite feats are Energy Substitution (sonic), Spell Focus (evocation), and Greater Spell Focus (evocation).

2) PrC that grants +1 caster level. It's prerequisite feats are Skill Focus (Knowledge: the planes), Combat Casting and Endurance.


From the concept angle, both PrCs are conceptually valid. From a game balance perspective, the first PrC greatly outweighs the usefulness of the second. I'd expect the first PrC to give next to nothing in abilities, whereas the second could be a bit beefier due to the relatively large waste of feats.

 

[Apok]

Because "concept" has zero to do with "game balance" (which is what we are discussing.) Prerequisites are there for game balance purposes.


Two examples:

1) PrC that grants +1 caster level. It's prerequisite feats are Energy Substitution (sonic), Spell Focus (evocation), and Greater Spell Focus (evocation).

2) PrC that grants +1 caster level. It's prerequisite feats are Skill Focus (Knowledge: the planes), Combat Casting and Endurance.


From the concept angle, both PrCs are conceptually valid. From a game balance perspective, the first PrC greatly outweighs the usefulness of the second. I'd expect the first PrC to give next to nothing in abilities, whereas the second could be a bit beefier due to the relatively large waste of feats.

Given your two examples, the first PrC looks to be some kind of Sonic specialist mage focused on dealing damage. An interesting concept but if that PrC gave no abilities of merit, then why bother creating it? What differentiates it from a standard Evocationist who has a sonic theme to his spells?

As for the second, umm.... Okay, I'm stumped. I have no clue what kind of concept would use those requirements. Maybe some kind of odd planeswalker fighter/mage type. You say that this PrC should get abilities that are of a somewhat higher caliber than the Sonic Evoker dude. Why? Because he is giving up more in terms of feats? Maybe those feats are critical to the functioning of the PrC concept. Because that concept isn't as usefull as a Sonic Evoker? Usefullness is highly situation-dependant, even for your basic blow-em-up strategists.

The point I'm getting at is that PrC's have to do something that the base classes can't do on their own (or can't do well) or the PrC is going to have no merit. In regards to balance, the designers have to take into consideration what the PrC is supposed to do and try to balance it internally. I admit, I don't care for PrCs that exist only as a means to uber-buff a class *cough*Archmage*cough* but I think the requirements for a PrC should make sense. After all, PrCs exist to give us options, right? I don't see PrCs as being something you have to suffer to get into, they should be natural extensions to what your character is. A fighter specializing in light armored fencing should be able to naturally slip into the Duelist PrC. A Rogue who focuses on disguise and social sneakiness should flow right into the Spymaster PrC with little trouble. A Wizard who fancies himself an elementalist should be able to go for the Elemental Savant without paying dearly for it. The concept, IMO, is more important than the power gain. Sadly, too many people see PrC's as a salad bar of Kewl Powerz to pick & choose from to create the Ultimate I Can Do Anthing And Kick Butt Too character.

I dunno if this makes any sense or not, but it's 3:00 AM and I'm falling asleep as I type this. Maybe I'll revise it in the morning...

 

[Chun-tzu]

About the whole spellcaster rate of progression, I definitely agree that a loss of more than a few levels is almost always too expensive. I'd like to see more PrCs take the Incantatrix approach (which is ironic, since the Incantatrix is still horribly overpowered) of losing access to certain types of spells. The Incantatrix loses access to one school of magic (unless he's an Abjurer).

This results in a spellcaster that has the same level of magic as generalists, but is more focused on certain types of spells and can't cast others. This is how PrCs are _supposed_ to work! Have the Elemental Savant lose spells of the opposite element (unless they've been Energy Substituted). The Mindbender might lose any physical buffing spells, in exchange for the mind-affecting abilities. A battlefield war wizard might lose enchantment spells (they should be specializing in mass attacks). This would be a lot like the question of which is the better path, the wizard or the specialist, and there's no clear answer.

 

[LokiDR]

I don't see why they can't be both. To date, I think all of the PrCs that I have seen have had prerequisites that match the concept of the class well enough (with maybe a few exceptions here and there) but what really irks me is when they throw in things like Toughness, Iron Will, or Run when it has absolutely nothing to do with the PrC concept, except perhaps in some half-heartedly contrived way so they can "maintain balance." This just makes me sick.

Granted, I think the design of some PrCs show the designers getting lazy, as with those pre-reqs you mention. But if you have a PrC based on casting metamagic, you shouldn't just require metamagic feat or 3. Those aren't requirements, they are the best way to power your character.

Toughness and Run are two that I don't recall from caster PrCs. But most of the time I see Iron Will, it makes at least some sense, seeing as all arcane casting is controling forces far beyond the scope of mortal men.

 

[Bastoche]

One simple solution: max of 5 level spellcasting PrC. If you have a hlaf spell progression, you'll end up 2 or 3 levels behind in caster levels. Which would still allow you 9th level spells. Second, you'll gain much less ability. These abilities will have to be worth approx familiar levels + 1 bonus feat (what a wizard would lose). The pre req will make it costly to the sorceror or the cleric, balancing it in regards to the wizard.

Even if the pre requ of the Red Wizard PrC are not much of a sacrifice, the loss of more schools is a good balancing idea IMO. Especiallly since another of the pre req is that you be a spec. wizard. I think the bonus feat is too much, but the rest is not that bad IMO. Better saves and better DC for one school vs loss of more schools, familiar abililties and feats.

 

[LokiDR]

One simple solution: max of 5 level spellcasting PrC. If you have a hlaf spell progression, you'll end up 2 or 3 levels behind in caster levels. Which would still allow you 9th level spells. Second, you'll gain much less ability. These abilities will have to be worth approx familiar levels + 1 bonus feat (what a wizard would lose). The pre req will make it costly to the sorceror or the cleric, balancing it in regards to the wizard.

Even if the pre requ of the Red Wizard PrC are not much of a sacrifice, the loss of more schools is a good balancing idea IMO. Especiallly since another of the pre req is that you be a spec. wizard. I think the bonus feat is too much, but the rest is not that bad IMO. Better saves and better DC for one school vs loss of more schools, familiar abililties and feats.

I consider 5 level PrCs lame. Not enough to fill the flavor and justify the pre-reqs most of the time. 10 level PrC are just more interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't take many ancane PrCs that don't have full spellcasting because of SR/dispelling. I wouldn't mind this so much if the PrC gave me a bonus on caster checks. Then abilities could add up to the high level spells I am missing that are problematic in their own right.

 

[Wippit Guud]

So, a suitable PrC for casters woudl have no +1 spellcaster level, but maybe +1 DC on existing spell levels?

So a sorcerer with 10 levels would only be able to cast lower-level spells, but at +10 DC check.

 

[Bastoche]

I consider 5 level PrCs lame. Not enough to fill the flavor and justify the pre-reqs most of the time. 10 level PrC are just more interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't take many ancane PrCs that don't have full spellcasting because of SR/dispelling. I wouldn't mind this so much if the PrC gave me a bonus on caster checks. Then abilities could add up to the high level spells I am missing that are problematic in their own right.

The Red Wizard is a 10 level PrC. It was an example of a nice 10 level +1 caster level potentially well balanced (losing a school to gain benefits).

But my point is if the PrC has to offer a compromise between flavor and balance, 5 lvl of PrC seems like a good compromise to me.