Were PrC's done all wrong?

[TiQuinn]

Re: Re: Re: PrCs

It's not a big deal though. The spellpool balances that out. To cast a spell you have to spend a spell. What's the big deal?

Couldn't disagree more. It's a big deal because it completely opens up the spell list to sorcerer who is normally limited in spell selection as a balance to the wizard. The wizard, likewise, is limited to the spells he knows and has in his spellbook. Both limitations, which I feel balance the classes, are thrown out the
window.

If you, the DM, allow your player to spend 5 days or 5 years dumping spells into the pool before he goes adventuring, it's your own fault, leaving you little room, if any at all, to complain. He shouldn't be hanging out that long. He's an adventurer after all.

Ah, so they should also throw out item creation feats? Those items take a few days or weeks to enchant. How about copying spells into a spellbook? Let's see...fireball? Sorry, you can't learn it. On the 2nd day, you have to leave the inn to start your next adventure. Any way you cut it, adventurers have and require down time to train, rest, gain spells, etc. Altering that just to deal with a prestige class is a bad idea, and again...indicates an inherent problem with the PrC.

Will saves? Not a big deal. If you need to justify it just look at as the result of a very focused mind, which is required to pull off the impressive ranged abilities that the PrC grants.

I don't have a problem with the saves. They don't have that much of an impact.

That is a pretty potent ability. If anything, it would be the backbreaker of the PrC, but I don't think it is.

One free attack per round? It doesn't happen very often. If your NPCs and Monsters are provoking 12 AoO's per round, you need to work on your strategy.

Nope, it's one free attack on each opponent that one of your comrades-in-arms gets an AoO on. Yes, it's strategy dependent, but players work to try to get in position for AoO's on their opponents, as do I with NPC's. But to give one character a free attack on each opponent that someone else gets an AoO on is just way too powerful. It also comes into play at least once every couple of battles.

All of these abilities taken together make for an uber-powerful PrC. Something there needs tweaking.

And don't bring up the Deepwood Sniper.....since you can qualify for more than one PrC, and since the reqs for the two are very similar (IIRC), they tend to piggyback on one another. However, personally, I draw the line at 1 PrC. You take 1 PrC, period.

Not really. Take a look ath the Archmage. In order to make use of their best PrC abilities, you have to permanently burn spell slots. So, it isn't a tipoff in every case at all. It's unique to each PrC.

Okay, it may be unique to each case. I still say it's a good warning signal though, even if each PrC should still be evaluated.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

Couldn't disagree more. It's a big deal because it completely opens up the spell list to sorcerer who is normally limited in spell selection as a balance to the wizard. The wizard, likewise, is limited to the spells he knows and has in his spellbook. Both limitations, which I feel balance the classes, are thrown out the
window.

I could be wrong, but isn't one of the requirements for this PrC the ability to prepare spells.. there for sorcerers can not take it?

FD

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

I could be wrong, but isn't one of the requirements for this PrC the ability to prepare spells.. there for sorcerers can not take it?

FD

IIRC, you can take the Arcane Preparation feat as a Sorcerer. But there again, it'd still be something I'd want to tweak.

My main point about PrCs is I think they should be balanced against other classes so that there is a distinct choice being made: You give up something in order to gain some other ability. This just doesn't exist in a lot of the PrCs in the classbooks.

They should also be fairly open. They can be geared towards one type of class but they shouldn't be exclusive to one class. An Order of the Bow Initiate, for example, could get there whether he was primarily a fighter, or a rogue, or a ranger. Fighter may be more easier and will meet the reqs first, but it's still open to other classes.

Third, I just think anything put out by WotC should be playtested. I'm sure they would say that they have been, but I have my doubts. Honestly, I hold them to a higher standard because they created the system. If you take a PrC out of some other source, then you may be taking your chances. It may be great, but it may be horrible too. I just don't think the same should apply to WotC, particularly when they did such a great job with the core rulebooks.

 

[Corinth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

Couldn't disagree more. It's a big deal because it completely opens up the spell list to sorcerer who is normally limited in spell selection as a balance to the wizard. The wizard, likewise, is limited to the spells he knows and has in his spellbook. Both limitations, which I feel balance the classes, are thrown out the
window.

This isn't the problem that you think it is because it requires the player to manage another resource--his Spellpool debt--along with all of the other ones. Use of the Spellpool takes a full-round action, and it is dependant upon an item that is easy to filch off of the magician's person. These are hardly trivial concerns, and the wise DM will be mindful of them when his game includes a PC of this class.

Ah, so they should also throw out item creation feats? Those items take a few days or weeks to enchant. How about copying spells into a spellbook? Let's see...fireball? Sorry, you can't learn it. On the 2nd day, you have to leave the inn to start your next adventure. Any way you cut it, adventurers have and require down time to train, rest, gain spells, etc. Altering that just to deal with a prestige class is a bad idea, and again...indicates an inherent problem with the PrC.

There are no required training times for PCs in D&D by default. If they exist, then they do so at the DM's will and no other; take it up with him. Otherwise, time is entirely the province of the DM and he can allow PCs as much or as little as he desires. A wise DM with a well-built world will have outside events occuring that impact upon the PCs, independant of metagame concerns, and those may disallow PCs from taking all of the time that they wish in their downtime pursuits. A DM may also want to keep things on a short leash for other reasons. Regardless, time is soley the DM's to do with as he will; if he allows a PC to rack up weeks or years of credit in the Spellpool, then that's his problem and no one else is to blame.

Nope, it's one free attack on each opponent that one of your comrades-in-arms gets an AoO on. Yes, it's strategy dependent, but players work to try to get in position for AoO's on their opponents, as do I with NPC's. But to give one character a free attack on each opponent that someone else gets an AoO on is just way too powerful. It also comes into play at least once every couple of battles.

S&F, page 33: "Once per round, whenever an ally within line of sight gains an attack of opportunity upon a foe, the initiate can make one ranged attack against the same foe, at his highest attack bonus as a free action."

This means nothing more than the OotB PC gets an extra AoO w/ his bow.

All of these abilities taken together make for an uber-powerful PrC. Something there needs tweaking.

And don't bring up the Deepwood Sniper.....since you can qualify for more than one PrC, and since the reqs for the two are very similar (IIRC), they tend to piggyback on one another. However, personally, I draw the line at 1 PrC. You take 1 PrC, period.

Bringing up the Arcane Archer and Deepwoods Sniper is quite fair because they are viable alternatives to the Order of the Bow Initiate; it's a valid answer to your question, and you do not get to bitch about it after the fact. The rules also allow multiple PrCs, so your preferences mean nothing outside any game that you run.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

Okay, it may be unique to each case. I still say it's a good warning signal though, even if each PrC should still be evaluated.

Read closer next time, and read for comprehension. You seem to miss things that are obvious to others.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: PrCs

I had a bunch of nasty things to say here, but I decided adding Corinth to my Ignore List would be a lot easier and kinder to everyone else. He still needs to remove the corncob, though.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: PrC's done all wrong

Space for rent

Sorry...couldn't delete it.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

IIRC, you can take the Arcane Preparation feat as a Sorcerer. But there again, it'd still be something I'd want to tweak.

Salutations,

ahh, yeah, I forgot about that. That would be pretty cheap. If I was to allow the PrC, then that feat would definitly be gone. I don't see much use for that feat other then to get into this PrC.

My main point about PrCs is I think they should be balanced against other classes so that there is a distinct choice being made: You give up something in order to gain some other ability. This just doesn't exist in a lot of the PrCs in the classbooks.

I would agree with part of your premise- the requirements should match the power level in the PrC. However, beyond the requirements.. I don't agree there should be a trade off system of class aspects. It all depends on the PrC.. err.. I went over this already.. I won't bore everyone with a repeat.

They should also be fairly open. They can be geared towards one type of class but they shouldn't be exclusive to one class. An Order of the Bow Initiate, for example, could get there whether he was primarily a fighter, or a rogue, or a ranger. Fighter may be more easier and will meet the reqs first, but it's still open to other classes.

Hmm. I would agree with that. The best part about the more open PrC's is that they allow for interesting combinations- like a cleric taking OotBI.

And of course, some just beg to be more specific. The holy griffen riders of Oldib- a specialized paladin order.. should only be open to paladins.

If you take a PrC out of some other source, then you may be taking your chances. It may be great, but it may be horrible too. I just don't think the same should apply to WotC, particularly when they did such a great job with the core rulebooks.

Even under the best of situations- and all the WOTC PrC's were perfect in design, the DM judgement call would still be needed.

I could not imagine allowing all the WOTC PrC's (or feats), and even more so when adding whatever Forgotten Realms has to offer.

Why? Things become chaotic when you have so many sources of power/prestige- and any sense of any "realistic" game is going to go out the window.

I don't understand why you compare allowing a PrC to gambling. I think one can look over most PrC's and get a feel for what is to come.

What if you are wrong? Well, I always have the ability to discuss with my group when I make a mistake and come to an agreement with them to fix the situation.

PrC's are a pretty open tool- and I am glad they are. As a dm, i would rather do a little work and have a say.. then have no say and do a lot of work.

FD

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

It's a big deal because it completely opens up the spell list to sorcerer who is normally limited in spell selection as a balance to the wizard.

You already stated that, so you didn't add anything new. By the way, this is a discussion after all, so it's OK for us to disagree.

Ah, so they should also throw out item creation feats?

That comment has no basis on the discussion at all. You should be wise enough to know that's not the point. Item creation feats shouldn't be thrown out, and I never said so.

Those items take a few days or weeks to enchant.

Exactly. But they also require a solid 8 hours. Futhermore, you can't perform any other strenuous activity during those days, such as spellcasting, which means...<drumroll>...you can't pay your spellpool debt in advance. Why? Because you're creating items.

How about copying spells into a spellbook?

What about it?

Let's see...fireball? Sorry, you can't learn it. On the 2nd day, you have to leave the inn to start your next adventure.

I fail to see where you're going with this, unless you're implying that I insinuated that you should completely restrict the time that spellcasting classes use in order to hold them back, which I didn't, and is also rediculous to even suggest that I did. To deny a class their basic abities is generally unfair, shortsighted, and a sure sign of incompetence, unless it is done so temporarily to make a game more interesting, such as constant attacks from baddies in a dungeon, leaving you no time to prepare your spells and forcing you to resort to drastic measures.

Any way you cut it, adventurers have and require down time to train, rest, gain spells, etc.

I agree.

Altering that just to deal with a prestige class is a bad idea, and again...indicates an inherent problem with the PrC.

Hardly. Besides, who said anything about not letting PCs have the time they need to use their class abilities? I sure didn't say that. What I did say, however, is that the only way that I could see the spellpool being abused is by allowing a PC to hang out for an extended period of time doing nothing but casting every spell they have to pay up their debt way in advance.

The only time there is an inherent problem with a PrC is when you can't compensate for it without a hassle. The spellpool can be easily compensated for.

Nope, it's one free attack on each opponent that one of your comrades-in-arms gets an AoO on.

Wrong. No wonder you don't like the class. You don't understand how it works. Read page 33 of S&F, Free Attack.

Yes, it's strategy dependent, but players work to try to get in position for AoO's on their opponents, as do I with NPC's.

True. Players do work together, but the ability isn't anywhere near as bad as you think when you actually see how it works.

But to give one character a free attack on each opponent that someone else gets an AoO on is just way too powerful.

Once again, you can only use Free Attack once per round. See the above page referrence.

It also comes into play at least once every couple of battles.

So what? It's a class ability. Do you actually expect a player to not use their class abilities every chance they can get? Of course it's probably going to come up at least once every couple of battles, but that sure isn't a sign that the ability is overpowering.

All of these abilities taken together make for an uber-powerful PrC. Something there needs tweaking.

It doesn't need tweaking at all, unless you want to tweak Free Attack so that it actually works as described in the book.

And don't bring up the Deepwood Sniper.....since you can qualify for more than one PrC, and since the reqs for the two are very similar (IIRC), they tend to piggyback on one another.

I'll bring up anything I want, but generally only if I think I have a valid point. Besides, you recall incorrectly. A couple of the prereq feats are the same, and the BAB prereq is the same, but the skill requirements are completely different. They barely "piggyback" each other at all.

However, personally, I draw the line at 1 PrC. You take 1 PrC, period.

Fine. So long as you recognize that that's a house rule and contradicts the rules, as there is no limit to how many PrC you can take. You can do whatever you want in your games, and I have no objections to that, but we're talking about the rules here.

Okay, it may be unique to each case.

Very unique, indeed.

I still say it's a good warning signal though, even if each PrC should still be evaluated.

It's not a good warning signal at all, especially when you misunderstand how an ability works, and even more so when each PrC is unique.

Some PrCs are pretty weird. The Shifter immediately comes to mind as one of the wierd ones, and some of them are indeed pretty strong, but it's quite common to ban a PrC, feat, or spell when the person banning it doesn't understand how it works. But that's cool, it happens to the best of it, and I am most certainly not immune to such mistakes either.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

I could be wrong, but isn't one of the requirements for this PrC the ability to prepare spells..

Yes. That is indeed one of the requirements, though the Arcane Preparation feat shouldn't allow you to meet the requirements, and I don't believe it does. After all, that feat only allows you to prepare one spell each time you choose the feat. It makes sense that only the class ability of preparing spells would allow you to qualify.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PrCs

You already stated that, so you didn't add anything new. By the way, this is a discussion after all, so it's OK for us to disagree.

You said the spellpool balances out the class. Since my argument hinged upon the fact that the spellpool ability is not balanced, I had to repeat myself.

That comment has no basis on the discussion at all. You should be wise enough to know that's not the point. Item creation feats shouldn't be thrown out, and I never said so.

Exactly. But they also require a solid 8 hours. Futhermore, you can't perform any other strenuous activity during those days, such as spellcasting, which means...<drumroll>...you can't pay your spellpool debt in advance. Why? Because you're creating items.

What about it?

I fail to see where you're going with this, unless you're implying that I insinuated that you should completely restrict the time that spellcasting classes use in order to hold them back, which I didn't, and is also rediculous to even suggest that I did. To deny a class their basic abities is generally unfair, shortsighted, and a sure sign of incompetence, unless it is done so temporarily to make a game more interesting, such as constant attacks from baddies in a dungeon, leaving you no time to prepare your spells and forcing you to resort to drastic measures.

My point, which you missed, was that preventing someone from using a class ability on the basis of time, even if it's from a PrC which I think is broken, is silly. Yes, that is what you suggested. Here's what you said:

If you, the DM, allow your player to spend 5 days or 5 years dumping spells into the pool before he goes adventuring, it's your own fault, leaving you little room, if any at all, to complain.

I don't recall how long it takes to cast spells into the spellpool to build up a surplus, but it probably is similar time wise to learning a spell. Regardless, it is potentially something that can be done in the down time that adventurers have, same as creating items or buying equipment, etc. It isn't something that requires years or months or days. Again, my point is that it's broken.

Hardly. Besides, who said anything about not letting PCs have the time they need to use their class abilities? I sure didn't say that.

Actually, yes you did. See above comment.

What I did say, however, is that the only way that I could see the spellpool being abused is by allowing a PC to hang out for an extended period of time doing nothing but casting every spell they have to pay up their debt way in advance.

The only time there is an inherent problem with a PrC is when you can't compensate for it without a hassle. The spellpool can be easily compensated for.

Again, it doesn't need to be an extended period of time to be abused.

Wrong. No wonder you don't like the class. You don't understand how it works. Read page 33 of S&F, Free Attack.

My apologies, I was wrong.

True. Players do work together, but the ability isn't anywhere near as bad as you think when you actually see how it works.

Gotcha, heard you the first time.

It doesn't need tweaking at all, unless you want to tweak Free Attack so that it actually works as described in the book.

Redundant, much?

I'll bring up anything I want, but generally only if I think I have a valid point.

So will I.

Fine. So long as you recognize that that's a house rule and contradicts the rules, as there is no limit to how many PrC you can take. You can do whatever you want in your games, and I have no objections to that, but we're talking about the rules here.

Last time I checked, that is what I said. Thank you for repeating it for me.

It's not a good warning signal at all, especially when you misunderstand how an ability works, and even more so when each PrC is unique.

I disagree. It is a good warning signal.

Some PrCs are pretty weird. The Shifter immediately comes to mind as one of the wierd ones, and some of them are indeed pretty strong, but it's quite common to ban a PrC, feat, or spell when the person banning it doesn't understand how it works. But that's cool, it happens to the best of it, and I am most certainly not immune to such mistakes either.

Really? I couldn't tell.

Prestige classes are broken if they do not offer a give and take scenario. If choosing between a PrC and a standard class is a no-brainer, the PrC is probably broken. Going over PrC's with a fine tooth comb like this is pointless.

But to summarize:

I think you're wrong about Mage of the Arcane Order.

I'm wrong about Order of the Bow AoO ability.

You're wrong if you think that a +1 to spellcaster level is not a warning signal that a PrC may be overpowered.