Your thoughts on the power of prestige classes

[Mistwell]

It's a bad thing in the same way having an unbalanced class, an unbalanced spell, or unbalanced weapon is a bad thing. It makes other choices in game play untenable. What that means is that you won't have any Wizards in the game, or Sorcerors in the game, just PrCs.

I've noticed, for instance, that except for the LoreMaster, most of the PrCs in the Books of Eldritch Might are balanced by having only spellcasting advancement every other level. I don't see that in most other PrCs in other splatbooks, and on deeper thinking, I observed that spellcasting advancement every level basically means that a primary spellcaster sacrifices nothing in exchange for cool abilities. When I made that realization, I banned all spellcasting advancement every level classes from the game except those that granted very weak abilities.

Then you didn't read BOEM II (songmage). In fact, I think Monte tends to balance the prestige classes he offers in his books - the mage-only classes have full spell progression, the pseudo-mage ones do not.

 

[Mistwell]

You mean the same Monte who said this?:



And this?:

[/b]

Obviously, we both interperted his articles differently. It seem to me that he's saying that you should make sure that class is not too good (as he mentions when critiquing some sample PrCs), but at the same time, reward players with appropriate abilities for those they've given up. In the same 'harsh requirements' paragraph, just before that sentence he says: "Tread Carefully." Indeed. [/B]

See you quoted the two he thought were overpowered, and ignore the ones he found underpowered. I was quoting from his thesis sentences. Overall, his advice tends towards giving no less than equal power to the prestige class than the powers they would have had if the stayed with the core class, and MORE power if the requirements are harsh. The poll answers here imply that NO prestige class should be more powerful than a core class. But that is not the belief held by Monte Cook, nor is it the statement in the DMG itself. Some prestige classes SHOULD be more powerful than core classes, if the requirements are right, and that is from the plain words of the DMG itself.

 

[Victim]

I've never seen anyone take the PrCs in BOEM 1 either. They all trade 5 levels of spell casting for some relatively weak powers. The Embermage has a higher HD, but needs mostly weak feats, and only gains some weak powers that cost him his extra HP to use. Wow. Lose most of your 8th and complete access to your 9th level spells for that?!

Spellcasting classes are tricky, because any losses in spell ability generally come from the top of the progression, where spells are the most powerful. It takes a lot of special powers to equal the wishes and Timestops that can be thrown around with level 9 spells.

 

[tarchon]

It's a bad thing in the same way having an unbalanced class, an unbalanced spell, or unbalanced weapon is a bad thing. It makes other choices in game play untenable. What that means is that you won't have any Wizards in the game, or Sorcerors in the game, just PrCs.

I dunno - our group has a bunch of 10th level characters, and despite the fact that we haven't nixed any Prestige classes, not one character has taken a single PrC level yet. Stacking up all the requirements for a typical prestige class really has proved to be a substantial barrier, as it should be.
I tend to be leary of the continued spell advancement as well, but in the two classes I know that get it, Loremaster and Virtuoso, the skill cost of buying into it is what really keeps it reasonable, and with Virtuoso, the weakness of the special abilities keeps it from being particularly attractive too.
I think what really makes the continued spell advancement tricky though is not so much the prestige class mechanic but rather the fact that 95% of the sorcerer's power is in the spell advancement, with only the Familiar abilities not being included. Wizards get bonus feats plus familiar abilities, so losing those tends to compensate the added PrC abilities a little better.

(Note: before anybody jumps in and starts on about what a killer class Virtuoso is for sorcerers, it only looks that way on a cursory analysis. I've written numerous posts on several fora explaining in detail why this is, and I'm not going to do it again, so believe me or don't.)

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Then you didn't read BOEM II (songmage). In fact, I think Monte tends to balance the prestige classes he offers in his books - the mage-only classes have full spell progression, the pseudo-mage ones do not.

Do you have the same BOEM II that I have? There are 4 PrCs in there. The Diplomancer: +1 spellcaster every other level. This one is suitable for Sorcerors and Wizards. The Eldritch Warrier: No spellcasting progression. The Knight of the Chord: +1 spell level on every other level. The song mage is the only one that's +1 spellcasting level every level. However, you must be able to cast spellsongs or the spell sculpt sound, pretty much mandating that you be a Bard, which is a relatively underpowered class. I'm ok with Bards getting +1 spellcaster level. It doesn't do much for the bard.

In other words, you're arguing on my side. The bard-specialist prestige class grants full spell progression, while the diplomancer grants progression every other level.

 

[Khorod]

Ideally a PrC is equal or a little more powerful than a core class, and adds particular flavor relevant to the campaign.

And no more than a tiny fraction of existing PrC's should be available in any given campaign.

IMC I use them for particular, elite organizations which have spent centuries developing particular abilities, or to build classes which I feel require some pre-entry training.

Also, classes which can be created at least in the abstract by core classes should not themselves be core classes. And only *maybe* should they be PrC's.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I've never seen anyone take the PrCs in BOEM 1 either. They all trade 5 levels of spell casting for some relatively weak powers. The Embermage has a higher HD, but needs mostly weak feats, and only gains some weak powers that cost him his extra HP to use. Wow. Lose most of your 8th and complete access to your 9th level spells for that?!

Spellcasting classes are tricky, because any losses in spell ability generally come from the top of the progression, where spells are the most powerful. It takes a lot of special powers to equal the wishes and Timestops that can be thrown around with level 9 spells.

I agree. Spoiler Alert! The Demon God's Fane has an Embermage NPC that the PCs get to fight. We'll see how powerful he is. I'm pretty sure he'll get taken down pretty quickly by my power-gaming group, but I'd like to see how much damage he does.

 

[WizarDru]

See you quoted the two he thought were overpowered, and ignore the ones he found underpowered. I was quoting from his thesis sentences.

No, I didn't. One of the classes I quoted was underpowered, the bondblade. Mind you, since there were only three classes reviewed, I only missed one.

You're drawing conclusions from the article that simply aren't there. When Monte critiques the Disciple of the Four Winds, he says: "Unfortunately, the class' abilities don't measure up to its harsh requirements." And he's right. That class makes you give up all of a monk's best abilities for the power to jump all over the battlefield. It's not a fair swap for a PrC that you can't even qualify for until 8th level, or 15th level for small characters.

That does not equal the same thing as saying PrCs should be more powerful than core classes. He's saying that if a character makes a sacrifice to take a prestige class, he should be compensated with abilities that make the sacrifice worthwhile.

How about the Internal Alchemist, the next Prc? "When balancing prestige class abilities, the number one way to look at it is to ask yourself: If a character didn't take this class, where would he be and what could he do? Then compare your answer to the things your prestige class can do. I like the internal alchemist a lot, but coupled with his normal spell progression, a couple of his abilities make him so much better than a normal wizard or sorcerer, the class is probably not properly balanced. Looks like a "too powerful" recommendation to me.

In my previous post, I quoted him about the bondblade. Let's quote him again: "For non-spellcasting classes, match up the abilities gained with the abilities lost. Does a fighter-style prestige class give abilities at least as good as a fighter would get (but not way better) if he or she just stayed with the basic class and got normal bonus feats? What about a paladin's special abilities -- do the prestige class abilities stack up against the additional laying on hands, smiting evil, and other benefits the paladin gives up?" There it is again: as good as, not better than. He's not trying to invalidate the core classes as a choice, but give players alternate, campaign-specific choices.


For those who'd like to draw their own conclusions, I encourage you to read Monte's original articles. The original first article is HERE and the second article can be found HERE. Given that the PrCs from Monte's own supplements, BoEM I and II, are both fairly low in power, I don't see much support for your argument, here.

The poll answers here imply that NO prestige class should be more powerful than a core class. But that is not the belief held by Monte Cook, nor is it the statement in the DMG itself. Some prestige classes SHOULD be more powerful than core classes, if the requirements are right, and that is from the plain words of the DMG itself.

The poll is not terribly well worded, IMHO. How about a specific quote or page reference from the DMG that makes this plain? It seems to me that Monte was saying, several times, that Prestige Classes should be rewarding to take, but roughly equal in power to a core class combination.

 

[Psion]

Obviously, we both interperted his articles differently. It seem to me that he's saying that you should make sure that class is not too good (as he mentions when critiquing some sample PrCs), but at the same time, reward players with appropriate abilities for those they've given up. In the same 'harsh requirements' paragraph, just before that sentence he says: "Tread Carefully." Indeed.

I interperet the article thusly: the prestige class should give SOMETHING up compared to the core class, but it only attempts to balance what is given up to the new abilities in the grossest terms. A prestige class that gives something up in exchange for something that appears slightly more powerful is not uncommon... but if you make a class that can do EVERYTHING that the base class can do and more with insufficient "entry sacrifices" to warrant it, then you have problems.

 

[Celebrim]

I pretty much agree with Psion on that. If you are going to use a PrC, then at the very least the PrC should require enough of a sacrifice that it is not a no brainer whether or not you should take it. Certainly no full BAB progression PrC that is providing more than one feat equivalent power every other level should also have multiple good saves, 4 or more skill points per level, and a broader range of class skills than the fighter. No full spell progression PrC should be giving more than 1 feat equivalent power every 4 or 5 levels unless there are also some drawbacks and restrictions on those powers.

Of course, if you made them balanced, probably no one would ever take them, because if they were balanced the only reason to take them would be RP based, and few good RPers would desire to constrain themselves to something as narrowly defined and cookie cutter as most PrC's.

Along with lack of balance, that's my other real problem. Sure, I agree that PrC's are one way of providing options. I agree that you certainly coudl use PrC's instead of feat chains. But is it really the best way? With a feat chain, I'm not really tying the power to any particular personality or concept. But, with a PrC that is what I'm doing by default. It takes an extraordinarily well written PrC to be as broad as a even the narrowest base classes (Barbarian, Paladin, for instance). The whole 'PrC' spreadsheet sort of character development is to me so anti-RP. It doesn't encourage real RP. It encourages stat development, not character development.

Given that I can accomplish the same thing by divorcing the powers from the flavor, and only combining them when necessary, PrC's just don't seem to me to be the best way to approach the problem.