What Would the Hierophant Have to Give Up To Gain Full Divine Spell Progression?

[The_Universe]

The Hierophant, unlike its arcane counterpart, the Archmage, lacks full progression. Instead, it has 1 more "good save" than the Archmage, and a d8 hit die.

It might seem, at first glance, that reducing the number of "good saves" and lowering the Hierophant's hit die would be a fair exchange for full spell progression, but I wonder if that would be enough?

So, rules guys and gals, what are your thoughts? What WOULD a Hierophant have to give up to gain full divine spell progression?

 

[DM_Matt]

The Hierophant, unlike its arcane counterpart, the Archmage, lacks full progression. Instead, it has 1 more "good save" than the Archmage, and a d8 hit die.

It might seem, at first glance, that reducing the number of "good saves" and lowering the Hierophant's hit die would be a fair exchange for full spell progression, but I wonder if that would be enough?

So, rules guys and gals, what are your thoughts? What WOULD a Hierophant have to give up to gain full divine spell progression?

Pattern them off the archmage, where they trade slots for their abilities. Origionally they used the same mechanic, and there were living city guidelines published that included the old version of one of the classes. I dont recall though if they were both slot traders or both gave up progression though. Either way, they were changed to be more different.

The better saves and hd need not be changed. Both are standard for their origional classes, and regardless, they were origonally considered balanced with the same spell loss mechanism.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Whatever the correct answer, I would say it is more important to compare them to a base cleric than an Arcane Hierophant or an Archmage. A cleric basically has four good things going for them: Divine Spellcasting, 2 good saves, a d8 hit die, and turn undead. Just to note, they get the average BAB and 2 Skill Points per level as well.

So, if you want the Hierophant class, I would compare them to the regular cleric. As written, the Hierophant gets average BAB, d8 for Hit Die, 2 Skill Points, and 2 good saves. So, those are a wash with the cleric. That leaves spellcasting and turn undead. If you want them to have full spellcasting that only leaves the turn undead class ability to put up on the trading block. That's not a whole lot to bargain with. Important, yes. But not going to result in a bunch of interesting features. Certainly not enough to add full casting to the current Hierophant!

So, I think if you took away one of the good saves, dropped the average BAB (or retained the BAB but dropped the character to a d6 Hit Die), and dropped the turn undead option you would have something worth trading for while retaining the full spell progression. I don't think it is still the same as 5 special abilities, but perhaps special abilities on every odd level of the PrC.

 

[Deset Gled]

So, I think if you took away one of the good saves, dropped the average BAB (or retained the BAB but dropped the character to a d6 Hit Die), and dropped the turn undead option you would have something worth trading for while retaining the full spell progression. I don't think it is still the same as 5 special abilities, but perhaps special abilities on every odd level of the PrC.

Honestly, I think if you want casting progression, you just plain shouldn't be trying to go for Hierophant. Is there a specific ability you want from the class? Could it be modeled with feats or other mechanic easier?

That being said, one of the major differences between the Hierophant and the Archmage is prerequisites. The prereqs for the Hierophant are laughable. Practically any 16th level cleric would qualify. OTOH, the Archmage requires more skills, more feats (which are often subpar), and a more stringent spell selection. In addition to modifying the PrCs abilities, you should also modify the prereqs.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Honestly, I think if you want casting progression, you just plain shouldn't be trying to go for Hierophant. Is there a specific ability you want from the class? Could it be modeled with feats or other mechanic easier?

Realizing, of course, that I wasn't the original poster who wants to change the Hierophant ... But I don't see anything wrong with someone asking what is wrong with trying to come up with a 5 level prestige class that grants full casting and a few extra bennies. Giving up Turn Undead is not always a big deal to every cleric concept - and many would be willing to trade turn undead and a lower hit die or one more worse save for an extra special ability or three.

Seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me!

 

[Piratecat]

Scooting this into house rules.

 

[airwalkrr]

So, if you want the Hierophant class, I would compare them to the regular cleric. As written, the Hierophant gets average BAB, d8 for Hit Die, 2 Skill Points, and 2 good saves. So, those are a wash with the cleric. That leaves spellcasting and turn undead. If you want them to have full spellcasting that only leaves the turn undead class ability to put up on the trading block. That's not a whole lot to bargain with. Important, yes. But not going to result in a bunch of interesting features. Certainly not enough to add full casting to the current Hierophant!

Let's be honest here. Most prestige classes are far and away better than the base classes. For for heirophant to be a "true" prestige class, it should be better than cleric, right?

I'm playing devil's advocate, but honestly, this is a poor argument given the way the system is designed. Prestige classes are almost always the best option, and when they aren't people just ignore them. I find the heirophant is often ignored for this reason. The only ability players I know seem to think it worthwhile is reach spell, and that mostly for chain metamagic cheese (and the jury is out on whether or not that actually works). The heirophant is a weak prestige class relatively speaking. Even most of the DMG prestige classes (which are weak relative to their splatbook counterparts) are mostly better than the heirophant.

 

[starwed]

The thing about the Hierophant is that it's really better than the archmage... if you take it past level 20. At this point, you don't sacrifice anything, and you can pick up nice abilities and even epic metamagic feats at each level.

 

[airwalkrr]

The thing about the Hierophant is that it's really better than the archmage... if you take it past level 20. At this point, you don't sacrifice anything, and you can pick up nice abilities and even epic metamagic feats at each level.

That is quite true. At that point the two classes are nigh-indistinguishable from their base classes except for their special abilities. However, most campaigns don't go to epic, and I think the OP was looking for some way to adjust it for lower-level characters.

 

[The_Universe]

Just to clarify, the question actually game from one of the players in my game. He's currently level 5, but not really looking to take the class until 16+, and as should be somewhat obvious, doesn't want to give up spell progression to take his class's equivalent of the archmage.

Is the consensus that the Hierophant, as written, is a little weak? That seems to have been mentioned a couple of times above. But I want to make sure that any resulting compromise is well balanced with the rest of the party.