Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[jmucchiello]

I can only infer from that statement that you don't consider any of the other fighter feats worthwhile: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Expertise, Improved Trip, Disarm, Improved Initiative, Ambidexterity, TWF, etc.

Do I think the ability to Bluff in combat is worth giving up Expertise or Improved Initiative or Sprint Attack? Not by a long shot.

Quite frankly, for a Power Attacking, High Strength, Two Handed style fighter, no, none of those are useful feats. Sorry, they are useful, but they are not as good as running up the Cleave chain. My example fighter would take Great Cleave at 6th and Improved Crit at 8th. I don't know what he would take for his normal 6th level feat, perhaps one of the ones you mention, Imp Init.

And because Skill Focus isn't a fighter feat, you're spending a regular feat on it, which means you're also suggesting that bluffing in combat is more valuable to a fighter than Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, etc.

Don't get hung up on the example. You wanted to know why I thought adding in ranks was unbalanced. I gave a potential example. You never did answer me about the inverse, if a feat is worth 2 ranks in a skill, is 2 (or 4) skill points worth a feat? Explain your answer.

All those feats you're giving up just to be able to Bluff in combat at an early level. An 8th level fighter has exactly the same abilities as you do PLUS one more feat. Improved Critical, perhaps.

Excellent hyperbole, but I only used my 1st level feat to improve my Blufff. I did not give up all of those feats, I merely delayed one of them.

So, I maintain that it gives up quite a lot. It's a feat, man, a FEAT.

It's a fighter. Yawn.

I agree, it's not broken. But you've based an awful lot of your argument against "+2 ranks" on this premise that Bluffing in combat is a big deal.

Only as they violate the class skill ceiling, you've stated that you do not think it does violate the class skill ceiling, so I'm fine with it. It's a great way to get some ranks in a skill you have to pay dearly in skill points for.

So the question is really rather this: Which is more powerful to your Bluffing Fighter concept: a feat that gives you a one time bonus of +2 ranks to Bluff, or a feat that gives you Bluff as a class skill? By the time you are 2nd level, having Bluff as a class skill is the better deal and thus, by your argument, more "broken."

That's not the question. It doesn't discuss making the character able to have more ranks than character level + 3 in the skill. Doing so would break the PrC balancing effect of skill ranks. The title of this thread is "Thoughts on the power of prestige classes". Along the way, one of those thoughts involved attaining ranks in skills set a minimum level for getting into the class. Your feat does not effect that process unless the feat is misinterpretted (see below). I have stated that I think a feat to make a skill a class skill and gives +2 bonus to the skill is as balanced as the Travel domain granting the Wilderness Lore skill to cleric along with a cool power.

As written, it does not allow you to break the level limit on ranks, and there is no reason to assume that it does. As it is most often interpreted, however, it does-- and I'm ok with that.

I don't think it is the designer's responsibility to tell the reader which rules DON'T change with every new rule you introduce. If reading the rule the wrong way is a big problem, I will spell it out, but in this case I am happy to have the feat interpreted however the reader wants. I please twice as many gamers.

I had this argument with my editor and now I see how right he was. When a writer has the choice between assuming that the reader knows all the rules and does not need to be reminded how they interact and choosing to add a single line to clarify that interaction, the writer should err on the side of the reader forgetting to apply an obscure rule: add the line of text. Why do you think the feat descriptions in the PH have the normal: sections? Those sections just repeat text from elsewhere in the book. But by restating the rule and reenforcing it, it provides the reader with understanding about how the feat is useful and it provides the reader with another place to learn the rule.

Max ranks in a skill is obscure. People still apply it incorrectly when multiclassing. Your "I please twice as many gamers" statement is false when the DM and the player disagree on the interpretation. Yet a line of text on your part and there is nothing for the DM and player to disagree on.

Joe

 

[Ace]

Flavor must be backed by substance. You don't squeeze ketchup straight into your mouth because it tastes good on a hamburger. You can create a PrC with amazing flavor for some monks on a mountain top who can copy a book in two days no matter the length (at 10th level). But if no player plays it, and no villain has it, it may as well not exist from the player's point of view.

SNIP

Joe Mucchiello
Throwing Dice Games
http://www.throwingdice.com

Well said! The only PRC's worth a darn are the ones that get used. The rest are basically drek

 

[jgbrowning]

i voted other

other:

I do think PrC's should be more powerful than a comparable straight classer but with a cavet....

there is always going to be role-playing restrictions. RP reasons may not be enough of a reason/restriction for play in general, but when you play with me as a DM, you'll see they do matter.

joe b.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You never did answer me about the inverse, if a feat is worth 2 ranks in a skill, is 2 (or 4) skill points worth a feat? Explain your answer.

A feat is always more valuable than skill points, because feats are rarer and practically infinite in their possibilities. (Mongoose will soon print a collection of over 1000 feats...)

Now, it may happen that a character CHOOSES to spend a feat on the equivalent of 2 or 3 or even 4 skill points, but that is a very situational choice. There are a lot of good feats, so many that a character must be fairly certain in the direction that he wants his character to go that he would spend one.

On the other hand, nearly every player, given the opportunity, would gladly trade 2 or 3 or even 4 of his skill points for a feat.

I trust that you are not under the impression that balance and good game design means there must be a 1-to-1 equivalence between the value of skills and feats. The game is more dynamic than that.

That's not the question. It doesn't discuss making the character able to have more ranks than character level + 3 in the skill. Doing so would break the PrC balancing effect of skill ranks.

Why the repeated insistence that the level limit on skill ranks was included so that you could balance prestige classes? You are really referring to limiting a prestige class to a certain level, you're not talking about balancing it in any way.

There is so much more to the role that skills play in actually balancing a prestige class. It goes beyond a simple query of how many ranks you have. I understand, I agree with you, and I also use ranks to limit the level at which a PC can pick up a class. But obviously you understand that where you force the player to spend his skill points is far more important than simply worrying about whether or not he has 10 ranks of something, and therefore he must be 7th level, and so suddenly the class is "balanced." If the class is balanced, it's balanced whether the character picks it up at 7th level or 5th level, 10th or 15th.

The skill rank requirements of prestige classes limit the classes to higher levels, true enough, but they also serve to take discretionary skill points away from the player and force them into skills that he might not ordinarily pay much attention to. That's where balance begins: give with one hand, take away with the other.

I had this argument with my editor and now I see how right he was. When a writer has the choice between assuming that the reader knows all the rules and does not need to be reminded how they interact and choosing to add a single line to clarify that interaction, the writer should err on the side of the reader forgetting to apply an obscure rule: add the line of text.

I do not have the luxury of adding a line or two of text to every feat, but more importantly, the caveat, "This book requires the use of the Players Handbook..." covers me in that regard. I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to expect readers to know how to spend skill points. That's why there is an entire chapter devoted to Skills in the PHB; I think it is far from obscure.

As I said before, if I think that the rule can be harmfully misinterpreted I am eager to provide a line or two of clarification. I do not believe that this example warrants it, first because the information is already provided in the PHB and second because a misinterpretation-- in this instance-- is not going to break the game.

It's a fighter. Yawn.

Heh... Them's fightin' words, mister.


Wulf

 

[jmucchiello]

On the other hand, nearly every player, given the opportunity, would gladly trade 2 or 3 or even 4 of his skill points for a feat.

I trust that you are not under the impression that balance and good game design means there must be a 1-to-1 equivalence between the value of skills and feats. The game is more dynamic than that.

Of course not, but it is nice when it does. I still can't decide if sacrificing all skill points at a level is worth it though. (must receive a minimum of 3 or 4 to be allowed to do it.) I can't decide if it's balanced.

Why the repeated insistence that the level limit on skill ranks was included so that you could balance prestige classes? You are really referring to limiting a prestige class to a certain level, you're not talking about balancing it in any way.

Well, in a way you are, if you give a PrC Spell Resitance at level 7 (out of 10), you should make sure that the PrC cannot be taken before character level 6 since SR should not become a player ability until around level 13 or 14. How you decide the PrC gets ability X at level 3 and Y at 6 and not the other way around should have some basis in whether characters of level 3 + minimum PrC entry level should have ability X and 6 + min for ability Y.

If the class is balanced, it's balanced whether the character picks it up at 7th level or 5th level, 10th or 15th.

Only if it has no abilities exclusive to high level charcters. (As I stated above.)

The skill rank requirements of prestige classes limit the classes to higher levels, true enough, but they also serve to take discretionary skill points away from the player and force them into skills that he might not ordinarily pay much attention to. That's where balance begins: give with one hand, take away with the other.

I agree but I place the minimum character level requirement slightly ahead of this in importance. I would rather someone complain that they had to rework the skill requirements for my PrC because they were too skimpy then that they had to rework the class' ability level because they occur in the wrong place.

I do not have the luxury of adding a line or two of text to every feat, but more importantly, the caveat, "This book requires the use of the Players Handbook..." covers me in that regard. I don't think it's a huge leap of faith to expect readers to know how to spend skill points. That's why there is an entire chapter devoted to Skills in the PHB; I think it is far from obscure.

Let's see, I have corrected people (on a web-board) about spending cross-class skill points on a skill that is a class skill in one of their other classes in the last few months. As I said, if you can clarify something that might be confused in a single line, it doesn't hurt to add it. I'm not saying reprint the Attack of Opportunity rules every time you reference them. I'm talking about little things that can be forgotten, like skill points. Don't you ever have your manuscripts read by anyone with just passing interest in the game? They ask the most interesting questions.

It's a fighter. Yawn

Heh... Them's fightin' words, mister.

Now, now, you mistake my meaning, I think. I was yawning over a fighter not using one feat optimally. A fighter can get away with taking a non-optimal feat far easier than any other class can.

Joe

 

[zorlag]

-

I don't mind if prestige class is bit more powerful than single classed character as long as it fits in to the world we are playing and makes sense for the character.

I evaluate every single prestige class before opening them as options for NPC's and PC's. And no, there are plenty that just don't make it, I have pretty high criteria. Most of the time either designer has misunderstood some point of the D20 system and made non-sensical abilities available or that PrC has non-standard BAB or saving throw progression. Other times you just get too much for nothing (or little). And then there are PrC's that can be handled with simple feat chains and organization information. Sometimes it just feels that they are in book just as a filler...

Z.