Spellcaster Prestige Classes: Balanced?

[Apok]

One thing you can be forced to give up for the power of the class are the feats/skills you gain before you enter.

Okay, I can see the logic in that argument, but wouldn't that only be applicable to PrC's who's power is kinda over-the-top already (and probably should be reevaluated)? I can see that some designers would use sub-optimal or nonsensical prereqs as a balance, but if they are then maybe they need to rethink the power-level that the PrC grants in the first place.

Take the Hospitlar. The feat requirements are, I think, Mounted Combat and Ride-By-Attack, or something similiar. Given what this class is, that doesn't really make much sense but I assume they put them there because the class was too powerful in the first place. Maybe? I dunno, I'm just speculating here.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, isn't that the whole point of PrCs? To be better than core classes?

No, the PrCs should be more SPECIALIZED than core classes. By sacrificing abilities you deem unimportant, you gain unique abilities that you want. The power level should stay the same, or else everyone would have to take a PrC just to stay even. In a perfect world, your PrC would be a natural fit for the abilities you were already focusing on. The prerequisites would be the skills and Feats you already were developing, the abilities would enhance the things you already did. Of course, that's not how it turns out in a lot of cases, but that's the theory.

For example, you're a Rogue. You get lots of skills, sneak attack, and a few miscellaneous high-level abilities. But, you want to be more of the agile, evasive type. You become a Shadowdancer, trading Sneak Attack and the extra skill points for some useful magical abilities. It's balanced, since you gave up some useful abilities to get other ones.
Think of the 7 Specialist Wizards as pseudoPrCs. To get in, you have to sacrifice one or two entire spell schools, but in exchange you get extra spells per day of your chosen school. It's still relatively balanced (I know a few people who still play generalist Wizards), just different. Think of the Paladin as a Fighter/Cleric PrC that gives you a code of conduct, but in exchange gives you a mount, better saves, and +1 casting every other level.

Anyway, with this philosophy, you can see why classes that give full spellcasting at every level are bad. You sacrifice nothing, but you gain substantial power. You haven't actually specialized in anything.
For example, I could be an Evoker, but I scribe a few low-end divinations and spend some skill points on Knowledge skills I don't use much. At the cost of ONE useless Feat, I become a Loremaster, and keep my full spell progression and get some miscellaneous abilities. But it doesn't impede my Evocation spellcasting, so I gain in power with no real drawback.

Marshall: that was what I said, actually, so we agree. Although, I don't think EVERY caster PrC should give +1 caster level at every level.

 

[Fenes 2]

IMHO, a PRC, especially a caster PrC with full spell progression, should offer enough disadvantages to cancel out the advantages, so that there is no net power gain. I tried it with my own homebrew PrC, but in the campaign it was made for the characters are going to get balanced through a lot of options - unequal amount of treasure, different social standing, better stats, custom magic items etc. - so I am not sure how it worked out.

 

[LokiDR]

Okay, I can see the logic in that argument, but wouldn't that only be applicable to PrC's who's power is kinda over-the-top already (and probably should be reevaluated)? I can see that some designers would use sub-optimal or nonsensical prereqs as a balance, but if they are then maybe they need to rethink the power-level that the PrC grants in the first place.

Take the Hospitlar. The feat requirements are, I think, Mounted Combat and Ride-By-Attack, or something similiar. Given what this class is, that doesn't really make much sense but I assume they put them there because the class was too powerful in the first place. Maybe? I dunno, I'm just speculating here.

Over the top power for some large sacrifice is a valid method of constructing a PrC. Red Wizard has shown up on the smackdown thread for spell DC smacks. There is power there. But you have to give up 2 schools of magic. That is a large sacrifice. Just because they give lots/powerfull abilities doesn't make them broken, but it does mean it should have a hefty drawback.

In the case of Hospitlar and all other pointless pre-reqs, I agree. If the class has nothing to do with mounted combat, it shouldn't require it. A knight PrC might require mounted combat, knowledge-nobility, and weapon specialization though. You are very right that the pre-reqs should have something to do with the class, or the class should be revised.

 

[Rill]

Those interested in the idea of a PrC that advances caster level without advancing spell progression might want to take a peek at the Hierophant from the FRCS. It is only a 5 level class, but serves as an example of a PrC that stunts spell gains without taxing the caster level.

-Rill

 

[LokiDR]

Anyway, with this philosophy, you can see why classes that give full spellcasting at every level are bad. You sacrifice nothing, but you gain substantial power. You haven't actually specialized in anything.
For example, I could be an Evoker, but I scribe a few low-end divinations and spend some skill points on Knowledge skills I don't use much. At the cost of ONE useless Feat, I become a Loremaster, and keep my full spell progression and get some miscellaneous abilities. But it doesn't impede my Evocation spellcasting, so I gain in power with no real drawback.

Your evoker should get a talking to by the DM Any rule set can be abused, but I don't think this is a very large abuse. You had to take metamagic/item creation. This means you can't take feats like great spell focus, spellcasting prodidgy, or penitration untill later. For your evoker, that may be too late. Also, given scribing times/costs, getting the divination spells might be annoying. What do you get? languages, bardic BS, identifying items, and minor bonuses to some stats. You aren't much of an evoker. This is subtle, but the focusing of the loremaster is there, unless you are very high level evoker with nothing better to spend your time on. By that point, these bonuses are inconsequential.

I'm not saying Loremaster is great, with slightly higher pre-reqs, it might be better, but balance is retained. What does the evoker really get out of it? Most would rather spend feats how they want I would think.

 

[Sarellion]

Hospitaler

The PrC is about giving shelter to pilgrims and protecting them on their traveling to holy sites. They are joining bands of pilgrims. It makes a lot of sense tp give them riding feats. Bandits and other potential threats are often highly mobile, so defenders need to be mobile, too. It is also good for scouting duties while traveling, The hospitaler can ride forward to scout and join the pilgrims on foot later.

 

[Apok]

Those interested in the idea of a PrC that advances caster level without advancing spell progression might want to take a peek at the Hierophant from the FRCS. It is only a 5 level class, but serves as an example of a PrC that stunts spell gains without taxing the caster level.

-Rill

Also, I believe Sean K. Reynolds has the original draft of the Archmage somewhere on his site. The original draft was much like the hierophant; no spellcasting progression but you got to choose a High Arcana at each level. I vastly prefer this version to the one printed in the FRCS.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Also, I believe Sean K. Reynolds has the original draft of the Archmage somewhere on his site. The original draft was much like the hierophant; no spellcasting progression but you got to choose a High Arcana at each level. I vastly prefer this version to the one printed in the FRCS.

Problem is that version no one in their right mind would take for more than a level. You'd have to have the wrost powergaming skills in the history of creation to take it. The one in the FR book is too good sure, but the original sucked just as bad if not more just on the other side of the balance equation.

 

[Chacal]

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.

That's interesting ! I like the spellsword for basically the same reasons, but, while
I noticed that a bard/fighter can take the PrC earlier, I fail to see
what bard spells are useful with the only flashy ability of the spellsword (cast with the sword)

I had a player who wanted to take it but didnot because of the few usable spells.
Do you have some examples of bard spells useful with the Spellsword ability ? It could make a player happy !

Chacal