Spellcaster Prestige Classes: Balanced?

[Spatzimaus]

Originally posted by LokiDR
You had to take metamagic/item creation. This means you can't take feats like great spell focus, spellcasting prodidgy, or penitration untill later.

Human Wizard. At first level he has three Feats: one normal one, one bonus one for Human, and Scribe Scroll as a Wizard. Get Spell Focus: Evocation, and Spellcasting Prodigy. At 3, get Empower Spell (cuz EVERYONE loves bigger Fireballs) At level 5, take any metamagic or item creation Feat. At level 6, get Skill Focus, and at level 7 you'll have 10 ranks in two Knowledge skills. Entry at level 8 (Wizard 7/Loremaster 1). And, other than Skill Focus, every single Feat listed was one you'd already have. So, for the cost of one useless Feat, you can still enter Loremaster at the earliest possible time AND still have other useful Feats (Spell Focus and Spellcasting Prodigy)

It's just that "three metamagic or item creation Feats" means nothing when your class already will have two by level 5, automatically, and these are Feats people already WANT to take.

Also, given scribing times/costs, getting the divination spells might be annoying.

Not really. There are a good number of low-level divinations that people want (See Invisibility, Darkvision, etc.), especially if you include Tome&Blood and other sources. As for the "one of level 3 or higher", practically every Wizard gets Scry at some point.

What do you get? languages, bardic BS, identifying items, and minor bonuses to some stats. You aren't much of an evoker.

But you aren't any LESS of an Evoker than someone who didn't take the class. All it cost you was one Feat beforehand (Skill Focus), and sacrificing the two bonus metamagic/item Feats you'd get during the class; which, as you pointed out earlier, aren't that great, especially since you'll already have three.

In exchange, you get:
Better skill list, more skill points, a Bardic Knowledge equivalent, and FIVE secrets (starting at half-Feat equivalent and working up to full Feat each), plus two componentless spells. Oh, and two free languages (yawn). If we just counted the Secrets as half-Feats (except for the one that says "gain a free Feat", which everyone takes), that's three Feats right there, which nicely counteracts the three you lost by taking the PrC.

You become a stronger caster, without sacrificing any part of your primary role. To me, that's not balanced, because it means that anyone who chooses NOT to take a PrC is losing in relative power.

 

[Apok]

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.

The original version didn't suck, it's just not the kind of PrC you would take for all 5 levels. Sure, you don't gain any spellcasting ability, but all of the High Arcanas were "free" (they didn't cost you a permanent spell slot) and the prereqs were less restrictive. It's the kind of PrC you take when you want to get a cool ability (spellpower, Master of Shaping, Master of Elements, Master of Counterspelling, etc.) to flesh out your wizard and make him a bit different from everyone else. You just pay for it with the loss of a spellcaster level.

Of course, if you started taking it at 21st level, then it's really a non-issue.

 

[Apok]

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

Heh, the real reason I advocate Bards taking it is so they can wear armor and not worry about ASF.

The Spellsword's spell-storing ability is so-so in terms of usefullness, but I can see a Bard putting various Enchantment spells into his blade. I don't recall if the weapon has to be a melee weapon, otherwise I would advocate using it in a bow.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Do GMs use restrictions on PrCs?

As I understand it, all PrCs are optional and available at the GMs discretion. I lump "mandatory" world-specific PrCs into this as well since it is the GM's option whether or not to run that world. So the question is, do GMs vet PrC requests? How do they deal with the acquisition of a PrC? Many PrCs assume an organization; to GMs use them or is it valueless fluff?

In my games, the players need some kind of in-game hook to explain the class. Typically this requires a tutor, journal of a past master, or something more ephermeral like dreams/visions/flashbacks for things like the Dragon Disciple. I also use the organization tie in; the Arcane Archer is only available to officers in some branch of the elven military. After one adventure where the PCs rescued an elven town, they were made Captains in the Militia (Retired). (Titles are cheaper than cash and PCs like them since it can have nifty bonuses, like being able to order around troops during emergencies)

A character can "develop" a new PrC, but IMO it takes so long that it is not viable for an adventurer. Or they do it by accident; creating an array of abilities that flows together so that their students/followers (assuming they have some) can gain all the benefits without the wasted effort on things that really didn't work. Several fighter-based PrCs feel like that; a certain suite of feats chosen in a particular order that have been codified. (mostly random blather, but justification for PCs not to create their own PrCs; instead they create the PrC and hope I drop an NPC in that they can befriend.)

Am I the odd-man out here? If so, why? Are they lazy or am I doing it "wrong"?

 

[Bastoche]

But you aren't any LESS of an Evoker than someone who didn't take the class. All it cost you was one Feat beforehand (Skill Focus), and sacrificing the two bonus metamagic/item Feats you'd get during the class; which, as you pointed out earlier, aren't that great, especially since you'll already have three.

In exchange, you get:
Better skill list, more skill points, a Bardic Knowledge equivalent, and FIVE secrets (starting at half-Feat equivalent and working up to full Feat each), plus two componentless spells. Oh, and two free languages (yawn). If we just counted the Secrets as half-Feats (except for the one that says "gain a free Feat", which everyone takes), that's three Feats right there, which nicely counteracts the three you lost by taking the PrC.

You become a stronger caster, without sacrificing any part of your primary role. To me, that's not balanced, because it means that anyone who chooses NOT to take a PrC is losing in relative power. [/B]

As a player of a wizard planning for career (I'm only 2nd level), I'd have to say that these 3 feats worth much more than the benefits of the loremaster in the grand scheme of things. For example, if I plan on creating a staff of power someday, I'll need some low level spell (where I will not want to waste money on divination spells), two creation feat and one or two metamagic feat. one of the craft feat is utterly useless for a mage in general (except for 2 very particular things: building golems and building a staff of power) and a metamagic item with a more or less limited applicability. Them you will want to create wands and have a few cool metamagic feat for long term goals (maximize and quicken especially) and maybe you'd like to get those bracers of armor. Now how many feat does this make ? 7 feats out of 11 in a non-human wizard's career. And we're the 4 others would be better off as improved initiative, thoughness (to survive that 1st level after all), spell penetration and spell focus.

So I take this opportunity to add that even as a power gamer, I haven't seen any PrC that I felt would've been better than the straight wizard class. That being said I'm not that familiar with the tome & blood splatbook... The only other PrC I found ok was the Red Wizard. And still, it would depend on what school I specialise in...

 

[LokiDR]

Spatzimaus, you didn't list anything that an Evoker would really want. In exchange, you don't have greater spell focus, spell penetration, or greater spell penetration. At level 8, you should start fighing enemies with SR. I don't agree that I would want scry right away as an evoker.

I never called Lore Master entirely balanced, but if you couldn't use scribe scroll or the wizard 5th level feat, this would look a lot less useful to the evoker you talk about.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Do GMs use restrictions on PrCs?

As I understand it, all PrCs are optional and available at the GMs discretion. I lump "mandatory" world-specific PrCs into this as well since it is the GM's option whether or not to run that world. So the question is, do GMs vet PrC requests? How do they deal with the acquisition of a PrC? Many PrCs assume an organization; to GMs use them or is it valueless fluff?
...
Am I the odd-man out here? If so, why? Are they lazy or am I doing it "wrong"?

There are many different styles. In my game, I don't really restrict player choice of PrC. Any organization that the a PrC is associated with will be around then. I encourage people to choose a PrC as a way to differentiate themselves.

Some people take the opposite approach. They want characters to develope through roleplaying. PrCs then are rules that get in the way of the character. If you seek them out, and try to get the training they can offer, you have more personality.

Neither is right. I would say that your method is less lazy than mine

 

[hong]

Spatzimaus, you didn't list anything that an Evoker would really want.

Eh. Empower and Maximize are great feats for a boom spell mage.

 

[Chacal]

Heh, the real reason I advocate Bards taking it is so they can wear armor and not worry about ASF.

The Spellsword's spell-storing ability is so-so in terms of usefullness, but I can see a Bard putting various Enchantment spells into his blade. I don't recall if the weapon has to be a melee weapon, otherwise I would advocate using it in a bow.

I agree that the spell-storing ability isn't very useful but it should have been since it's more fun/flashy than just some bonus to arcane failure.

Chacal

 

[LokiDR]

Eh. Empower and Maximize are great feats for a boom spell mage.

I meant out of Loremaster, not in general. I am trying to make less spammy posts.