Were PrC's done all wrong?

[TiQuinn]

Re: PrCs

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.

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.

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.

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

That's cool, I see your point, FD. When d20 was opened up and publishers started coming out with a lot of material, I knew a lot of it would probably be worthless. I hoped WotC books would be a little bit better, and usable from the get-go. With tweaks and changes, many of these PrCs can be changed, but I'd rather not have to do it to begin with. Live and learn!

 

[kreynolds]

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

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.

...and offer nothing useful by doing so. Congratulations.

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.

I didn't miss your point at all. I just don't agree with it.

Here's what you said:

Don't bother. You just don't get it.

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.

Again, your lack of understanding only further proves my point that you must at least have an inkling of a clue as to how an ability functions before you can even attempt to make an educated decision about the class.

Returning a spell is a full-round action.

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 takes far less time to replenish the spellpool than it does to create a magic item.

It isn't something that requires years or months or days. Again, my point is that it's broken.

And my point is that it's only broken if you, the DM, break it yourself.

Actually, yes you did. See above comment.

Again, you just don't get it.

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

I agree, but like I said, I think it's only broken if you, the DM, break it.

My apologies, I was wrong.

No problem. It's cool.

Gotcha, heard you the first time.

Good. Just being clear.

Redundant, much?

Read the ability descriptions before you fly off the handle much?

So will I.

Good. That's your right.

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

No problem. Also, I repeated that because I was making it clear to you that it doesn't matter what you do "in your games", as we are talking about the rules, not I-don't-like-this-hombrew-rules. Your "house rule" doesn't have any bearing on the subject of rule balance. We are arguing over whether or not it's broken, not how to fix it.

I disagree. It is a good warning signal.

Yeah. I got that already.

Really? I couldn't tell.

Do you have a point here or are you just ticked because I yanked the rug out from beneath you? I said I wasn't perfect, and it isn't very impressive nor is it a sign of maturity when you take the opportunity to attack someone for showing signs of humility. *shrug*

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.

Cool. Even though I disagree, I'll respect you're opinion.

Going over PrC's with a fine tooth comb like this is pointless.

Funny. I would call that playtesting and balance analysis. Strange that you think it's pointless.

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

That's fine. I never said you must agree with me.

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

See previous response.

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

See previous response.

 

[JohnClark]

I've had pretty good sucess with PrC's so far in the campaigns I've played in. I had a gnome air elemental savant who was alot of fun to play, flying and what not. I currently have a gnome techsmith, that class is so cool. And it's alot like a class we had created for him called an arcane smith, which we created just before faiths and pantheons came out. I've also played a ninja of the crescent moon which I enjoyed immensly. And one of the other players in our game played a dragon disciple which actually made for a cool story twist, his father ( i know, it's supposed to be dilluted draconic blood, but we changed it up a little) was a massive red dragon that came and saved us from a pretty bad-ass lich who was about to sacrifice the dragon disciple. So, in my experience they've added alot of roleplaying interest to my characters and have spiced up the campaigns to a certain degree. I agree that some are overpowered, but with a litte house ruling you can make most of them pretty interesting.

 

[hong]

Re the mage of the arcane order:

The spellpool debt is a problem, but not because it's unbalancing. You still have limits on how many times you can call on the spellpool per day. The debt is a problem because you can dump spells into it without limit, and this makes a mockery of the concept of a "spellpool currency". The fact that it requires downtime is a trivial barrier; every party that has at least one item-creating character is going to have downtime, assuming you don't just want to screw your players out of a feat. So while the cleric churns out yet another wand of CLW, you pump all your spells into the spellpool.

The full-round action to call on the spellpool is also a no-brainer. All it means is that you probably won't be calling on the pool in combat, but that leaves six million other uses for it. These uses are left as an exercise for the reader.

That said, I don't think the class is irretrievably broken. It's a cool concept, and one that I'm planning on using in the Britannia 3E world. Note that wizards don't exist as a separate class in Brit 3E; the sorc is the primary arcane spellcaster (with a suitably tweaked backstory).

These are the changes I've made to the PrC:

The requirements to become a guildmage (mage of the arcane order) are: 10 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), 10 ranks in Spellcraft, any three metamagic or item creation feats, and the ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells (the Cooperative Spell and spell preparation requirements do not apply). Spells from the Spellpool cannot be used for the purposes of item creation. If the guildmage accumulates levels in the Spellpool in excess of his debt (if any), the excess isn't counted. Since arcane spellcasters in Britannia don't use spellbooks, the new spell ability doesn't apply. Repaying the debt to the Spellpool takes at least one full day, during which the mage cannot fight, cast spells, use magic items, conduct research, or carry out any other physically or mentally demanding task.


Re spellcasting PrCs in general:

The problem here is that a lot of the power of a spellcasting class comes through their spells. Either a PrC grants full access to those spells, and thus becomes overpowered, or it only grants partial access, in which case it becomes weak. The latter case is also hard to handwave: if a PrC is supposed to be a specialist at, say, healing, why should they get less and/or weaker healing spells than a regular cleric? Substitute any niche you care to name for healing.

The wizard class doesn't have this problem so much as the sorc, since you get a metamagic/item creation feat every 5 levels. It's still a problem though. Clerics and druids also have more at stake than arcane spellcasters, namely better saves, better BAB, turn undead/skill points. If a PrC featured a reduced save or BAB progression than the base class, in return for nifty abilities, this would be a good tradeoff. In practice, however, every cleric PrC ends up with exactly the same BAB and save progression as a normal cleric, and also has nifty abilities, so again nothing much is lost.

One solution might be to limit spellcasting PrCs to casting spells from only particular schools. They would be like specialist wizards (which IMO should have been treated as PrCs in the first place). Or if the existing schools don't fit the theme, you could use any other classification scheme instead. This fits in perfectly with the PrC concept: you're better in your chosen niche, but you're not as flexible.

 

[TiQuinn]

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

kreynolds -

There was nothing "to get" in your point. You made an illogical comment, and I pointed it out. I thought I was talking to someone who had something constructive to say. I was mistaken. You'd rather belittle me than converse politely.

BTW, forgive me if I can't quote the rule for the spellpool completely from memory. Obviously you can or you have the book in front of you. Whatever the case may be, it was irrelevant to the argument.

Cheers!

 

[kreynolds]

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

<snip>

*shrug*

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: PrC's

Re the mage of the arcane order:

The spellpool debt is a problem, but not because it's unbalancing. You still have limits on how many times you can call on the spellpool per day. The debt is a problem because you can dump spells into it without limit, and this makes a mockery of the concept of a "spellpool currency". The fact that it requires downtime is a trivial barrier; every party that has at least one item-creating character is going to have downtime, assuming you don't just want to screw your players out of a feat. So while the cleric churns out yet another wand of CLW, you pump all your spells into the spellpool.

The full-round action to call on the spellpool is also a no-brainer. All it means is that you probably won't be calling on the pool in combat, but that leaves six million other uses for it. These uses are left as an exercise for the reader.

Exactly. The debt is mostly there for color as opposed to being any kind of limitation on the class.

That said, I don't think the class is irretrievably broken. It's a cool concept, and one that I'm planning on using in the Britannia 3E world. Note that wizards don't exist as a separate class in Brit 3E; the sorc is the primary arcane spellcaster (with a suitably tweaked backstory).

These are the changes I've made to the PrC:

The requirements to become a guildmage (mage of the arcane order) are: 10 ranks in Knowledge (arcana), 10 ranks in Spellcraft, any three metamagic or item creation feats, and the ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells (the Cooperative Spell and spell preparation requirements do not apply). Spells from the Spellpool cannot be used for the purposes of item creation. If the guildmage accumulates levels in the Spellpool in excess of his debt (if any), the excess isn't counted. Since arcane spellcasters in Britannia don't use spellbooks, the new spell ability doesn't apply. Repaying the debt to the Spellpool takes at least one full day, during which the mage cannot fight, cast spells, use magic items, conduct research, or carry out any other physically or mentally demanding task.

Good changes! I hadn't considered the use of the spellpool for item creation, but I can see where that'd be a problem, particularly if you don't want your spellcasters to be creating a lot of magic items themselves. The elimination of the excess and the repayment time for the debt also makes use of the spellpool something that is used in times of special need, as opposed to a regular occurrence. I like.

Re spellcasting PrCs in general:

The problem here is that a lot of the power of a spellcasting class comes through their spells. Either a PrC grants full access to those spells, and thus becomes overpowered, or it only grants partial access, in which case it becomes weak. The latter case is also hard to handwave: if a PrC is supposed to be a specialist at, say, healing, why should they get less and/or weaker healing spells than a regular cleric? Substitute any niche you care to name for healing.

The wizard class doesn't have this problem so much as the sorc, since you get a metamagic/item creation feat every 5 levels. It's still a problem though. Clerics and druids also have more at stake than arcane spellcasters, namely better saves, better BAB, turn undead/skill points. If a PrC featured a reduced save or BAB progression than the base class, in return for nifty abilities, this would be a good tradeoff. In practice, however, every cleric PrC ends up with exactly the same BAB and save progression as a normal cleric, and also has nifty abilities, so again nothing much is lost.

One solution might be to limit spellcasting PrCs to casting spells from only particular schools. They would be like specialist wizards (which IMO should have been treated as PrCs in the first place). Or if the existing schools don't fit the theme, you could use any other classification scheme instead. This fits in perfectly with the PrC concept: you're better in your chosen niche, but you're not as flexible.

Have you checked out the 1/2 point spell level progression on Sean Reynolds site? It's been proposed as an alternative to the +1 spellcaster level. I've heard some folks talk about it, but I wonder how well it works in play.

 

[hong]

Re: Re: PrC's

Have you checked out the 1/2 point spell level progression on Sean Reynolds site? It's been proposed as an alternative to the +1 spellcaster level. I've heard some folks talk about it, but I wonder how well it works in play.

My understanding of the 1/2 point thing is that it basically converts this:

+1 spellcasting level
.
+1 spellcasting level
.
+1 spellcasting level
.
+1 spellcasting level
.

Into this:

+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level
+1/2 spellcasting level

Which doesn't really do anything to address the problem I mentioned. Personally, I think SKR is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[TiQuinn]

Re: PrC's

Hong -

It does in some respect address the issue of a spellcaster not gaining ANY power when they go up in level under the PrC as opposed to gaining a full spellcaster level. I'm just not sure if it really solves the problem though.

Limiting the schools could work also but would essentially each spellcaster PrC would have its own spell list, a la Bladesinger or Assassin?