| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The SLA rulings are considered a bit weird, and when you're using this method to gain quicker entrance you'll have to make some sacrifices. I'm more annoyed with the prestige classes that require two or more awful feats to enter them the way they were intended to be entered.
Well of course it feels awkward when you try to match a concept with something the system was designed to not make easy. Any 'class' based system is going to be like that.
The only way of getting past it that I know of is some sort of a point based system. DnD had the old Skills and Powers system which had some aspects of this.
I got X experience so I have 14 points to put in the available powers. I'll only put 1 in martial skills cause I never use them. I'll put 3 points in these defensive abilities to keep me alive. and I'll put 5 points each in divine and arcane spell casting.
But those systems have other problems. Usually players 'cherry picking' their desired abilities that have nothing to do with each other thematically by combine to something horribly overpowered.
Aasimar who roll twice on their table can get both a divine and arcane sla to qualify. That means you can be a mystic theurge by level 3.
Yes. Yes I do.
As GM, I waive pre-reqs all the time. Being told you can't play the character you want without the baggage of feats you don't want is not fun.
The "balance" value of this burden is dubious at best.
But, even though I happily waive such requirements, my players and I usually end up making things by RAW anyway. Weird. Just feels better to have things be valid by RAW, even if you have permission to do otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played one prestige class, an eldritch knight. My DM turn them into an order of arcane paladins (for lack of a better word). The class had a code of conduct, and gaining entry also required having my party and some NPCs serve as character witnesses, while the ceremony was solemn and felt sacred. It really made the wait to get into the prestige class a major milestone in my character's career.
Well of course it feels awkward when you try to match a concept with something the system was designed to not make easy.But that's my kvetch. Why does the system try to make it difficult? I remeber designers saying that when the designed 3.0 they didn't want to have class or level restrictions. So instead they made restrictions like "must be able to cast 2nd level divine spells." I don't get that, it turns into all sort of wierd annoying gyrations.
Mostly because the prestige classes that are designed to mix 2 classes are a hack on a system that already doesnt work well with multiclassing. They were a bandaid on a knife wound. The prereqs are there because if you just got full wizard and cleric casting you would be too powerful, so you have to 'pay' to play. They are deliberately punative because anything else would mean you get to be 2 classes in one.
The way this sort of thing should be done is via either an archetype (for small shifts) or a new base class for large shifts. If you want to be a mystic theruge, take a look at the super genius games Magister. Its what the MT should be, and its a single base class. At level one you can potentially have both cleric and sorc/wizard spells. You wont be as good at either as either a cleric or wizard, but nor should you be.
The class is designed from the ground up to mix divine and arcane casting (well any two spell lists really). Personally I think a base class made to fit your concept will always be superior to a prestige class in the game as it exists.
Granted, none of those are what I *wanted* to play, but I can modify my concept. But why should I?
By that token, why should the GM modify the rules to fit your concept? The answer is for both of you to expect to compromise.
Maybe I am being picky or stubborn. Or maybe the prereqs are just goofy. If the intent is to keep you from taking mystic theurge until your character is 5th level, why not just make that the prereq instead of having to contort your way through all these obstacles?
Because the intent isn't necessarily for your character to be 5th level, per se. That might have gone into the calculations, but the main in-character intent is so that you're well-invested in both arcane and divine spells before you're advancing in the two together no matter how long it takes you to achieve those requirements.
The whole SLA argument, I think, is mostly players trying to cheese into the prestige class without really achieving the prerequisites. I know devs have said that it's legal, but I think it really screws with the prestige class concept.
The point of the current MTis to have a crap ton of low level spells. For the lazy caster type it sounds like a perfect fit. If you want high level hard hitting spells pick a single class.
Mostly because the prestige classes that are designed to mix 2 classes are a hack on a system that already doesnt work well with multiclassing. They were a bandaid on a knife wound.
Yeah, this. But I disagree that it means we need more base classes; instead, I think it means we need to fix multiclassing. If it's going to exist, it needs to be at least minimally viable for any combination you'd care to name.
EDIT: By "we" I mean the d20 gaming community as a whole, not you and I personally. Just to clarify.
Mostly because the prestige classes that are designed to mix 2 classes are a hack on a system that already doesnt work well with multiclassing. They were a bandaid on a knife wound.Yeah, this. But I disagree that it means we need more base classes; instead, I think it means we need to fix multiclassing. If it's going to exist, it needs to be at least minimally viable for any combination you'd care to name.
EDIT: By "we" I mean the d20 gaming community as a whole, not you and I personally. Just to clarify.
I dont agree. I think multiclassing in and of itself is bad for a class based system. A single base class is a closed contained system. You have a set amount of class abilities you have to worry about if you are designing something to go with that class. If that class and its abilities could work just as easily with any class then you have a much larger design space.
The more flexible a system is the easier it is to exploit. I'd rather have things designed to specifically cover certain concepts then play the mix and match game. But again this is my personal preference. I'd rather a system that has a large amount of classes, then a more modular system that is either talent based/point based or makes multiclassing work seamlessly (which really isnt very far from the first 2).
I'd rather multiclassing simply not exist then try to make multiclassing/modular classes work. I feel like in order to keep that balanced you have to do alot more watering down of existing abilities and slow the progression at early stages of classes, otherwise the optimized combination of classes/abilities will always be superior to the 'standard' or single classed progressions. Its where I felt saga edition fell short. It felt like it took to level 7 or 8 for any character concept to get going because all the talents were watered down to prevent cherry picking of the starting abilities. Everything 'cool' had a bunch of prereqs required to build up to it. It seemed to me that was in the name of the balance, and not unjustly so, it just make low level play in that system kind of meh to me.
|
A recent, and in my opinion bad, ruling with limited scope doesn't cause me to fret over the entire PrC system or otherwise think that it is problematic. I don't build PCs thinking they have to be the very best possible build. I build characters to make sense within their setting and motivation. A character doesn't decide if he is of a race that has some loophole exception. He is born, has experiences that mold his view if life and makes the choices available to him. I find RPGs much more enjoyable when approached in this manner than trying to find some tweaked optimum as anything other than a thought exercise.
For those who approach the game differently, more power to you. You don't limit my ability to enjoy the game, nor would I see it as BADWRONGFUN. It just doesn't give me the most out of the game. If it creates quandaries for you, review your preconceptions, overcome the quandaries, change the rules to fit your needs, or select an option that doesn't provide those problems for your choices of gaming.
Aasimar who roll twice on their table can get both a divine and arcane sla to qualify. That means you can be a mystic theurge by level 3.Nope. Skill prerequisites prevent that.
my mistake, level 4
To be honest, the fact that a power-bump exists via SLAs is a great thing at a table wherein you feel useless without using it, but if you're looking into a character concept, pigeon holing it for the sake of the power boost sticks a little as shrugging off importance of the roleplaying aspect of things.
Although, given aforementioned sensation of "I'm useless!", the question then becomes "well, what is the least disruptive thing I can do to make this viable for my gaming group?"
At which point, my earnest response is to say: Mention a few more details on the character concept and ask the advice board.
If you just want to have a disdain for the physical, why is Aasimar a problem? They are rather blank slates, excluding that wierdness of outsider heritage. More yet, the Cleric option to get the 2nd-level divine spell is the Fate Inquisition (iirc), which then lends its own question - how does [insert interpretation of what Fate pertains to here] scratch the concept? Now to say "your ideas all suck!" but more demonstrating the question "what is least disruptive?"
I can appreciate they might not feel write in some way. Hell, I personally don't like playing Gnomes. Doesn't matter if it'd fit into the character concept and optimization so well as to be perfect - I just have an inherent bias and dislike. However, if one is sat down looking at a character, and one can't make it work due to some reservation, one has to ask what those reservations are worth.