If you wanna really take a look at every PrC that Wizard recognized for D&D 3.x .... you are looking at 782 entries. There are some duplicates from different sources, but there's a LONG, LONG list there.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/prc
I'd have to agree that some PrCs are overpowered, at least for a 1 to 3 level dip, and there are some PrCs that are worse than simply staying in a core class. (from my opinion only, others may disagree due to play style and quite possibly a better imagination on how to utilize abilities I might find worthless)
Optimized 1-2 level dip PrC just off the top of my head:
Pious Templar (for good saves, Mettle ability)
Dragonslayer (1st level provides "Fearless" ability, +1 caster level)
Warshaper (1st lvl immune to stun/criticals)
Order of the Bow Initiate (remove AoO with bow in melee)
Like I said, that's just off the top, there are quite a few more that I know people will go into, such as Exotic Weapons Master, but I don't know the whole reason behind the "dip" - I just know it's usually to optimize as much as possible.
100% of the benefits of a regular cleric, with added bonuses on top.
This is a problem with the base class, not the PrC.
And I am still quite amused that this whole thread was a spin off of a quote claiming that the Warmage was actually overpowered, as, barring Rainbow Servant cheese, this idea is comically incorrect.
When evaluating a conversion, look at it in two categories:
Compatibility with 3.P
Relative Power to Entry Class(es) - for a great discussion on this, head to this thread
If a PrC has few compatibility issues and is already at roughly even in power for it's entry class(es), then it can likely be ported straight, especially if it progresses any base class abilities.
If its weaker than it's entry class(es), as sadly far too many PrCs are, it's better to overhaul it entirely and either wrap it into an option of the base class (not through feats, that's a trap) or to "power it up."
If its one of the few super strong PrCs, remember to look at the place of it's entry class(es) in the rest of the game before nerfing or banning it. A Warhulk is a powerhouse, but if the rest of your game is well played wizards and clerics, then it's still going to be a weakling.
So often on these boards I see people constantly advising turning prestige classes into feat chains, and while I can see that being viable in some cases, most of the time it's just putting a massive feat tax on everybody to the point the abilities cease to exist in anybody but a fighter.
Exactly. 3.P increased feat costs enough for some basic items, we don't need to go inflating them even more by making them buy class abilities as well. Feats, after all, are a far more limited resource than class levels.
THANK YOU! So often on these boards I see people constantly advising turning prestige classes into feat chains, and while I can see that being viable in some cases, most of the time it's just putting a massive feat tax on everybody to the point the abilities cease to exist in anybody but a fighter.
If its weaker than it's entry class(es), as sadly far too many PrCs are, it's better to overhaul it entirely and either wrap it into an option of the base class (not through feats, that's a trap) or to "power it up."
First of all, voluntarily paying for something and getting something in return is not a tax. It's perfectly reasonable to get one feat's worth of abilities by paying one feat. When you go to a store to buy furniture, I assume you don't complain to the manager about how it's a furniture tax and you shouldn't have to pay him. Contemplate this.
Second of all, I said "most prestige classes can be made into a couple of feats or an alternate class feature". My view is that most prestige classes give you a new or improved ability in exchange for your normal class abilities. A prestige class that gives you new or improved abilities for free (or very, very cheap) is a poorly-designed prestige class. There should never be prestige classes that are like "a cleric, but better" or "a monk, but better".
First of all, voluntarily paying for something and getting something in return is not a tax. It's perfectly reasonable to get one feat's worth of abilities by paying one feat.
And one feat's worth of abilities is far more valuable than a single class level.
The idea of a 'feat tax' is that feats are being paid to play a certain character concept, while other characters that are not any mechanically weaker (and often actually stronger) but follow a more main stream concept still have all their feats to spend.
There should never be prestige classes that are like "a cleric, but better"
Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u]. It is strong but boring. All Cleric PrCs are either crap because they have interesting abilities but bring down it's spellcasting (thusly reducing it's overall effectiveness) or make it more powerful. There is no middle ground, and it's because the class is poorly designed. It has two class features. Spellcasting and turning. That's it. And that is boring and bad. It's not the well designed PrC's fault that it is meant to be tacked on to such a crappy (but so so powerful) base.
EJoThims, I think I love you.
That is all.
And one feat's worth of abilities is far more valuable than a single class level.
Okay, let me make sure I get this. On the one hand, we're looking at one feat.
On the other hand, we're looking at one class level, which you assert is less valuable. Let's take one class level in fighter. For that, we get +1 BAB, +1 HD, possibly improved saves, maybe armor training or something, and a feat. How is A > A+B+C+D, if B,C,D are all > 0?So I'm assuming you meant "one class level worth of abilities, not including HD, saves, etc.)." And I'm assuming you don't mean a fighter class level, because a straight fighter gets 1 feat at every single level. OK, let's look at a caster instead, then, with all those icky "dead levels" that Zurai asserts they have. For example, say you're 12th level, and you could choose between getting a feat, or gong for 13th level and getting access to a 7th level spell. Personally, I can't think of any feats that are better than a 7th level spell. Would I rather have a +1 to AC all the time, or 1/day be able to disappear into a magical escape hole where no one can find me, with all my friends, and heal and rest and regain that spell? Um, I'd take the caster level. YMMV.
Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u]. It is strong but boring.
So the solution is to make a class that's stronger in every way but more interesting? That's dumb. (Hint: the "more interesting" bit is not the dumb part.)
If you want the cleric class to be stronger, fix the cleric class, don't make a "Cleric++" prestige class.
The idea of a 'feat tax' is that feats are being paid to play a certain character concept, while other characters that are not any mechanically weaker (and often actually stronger) but follow a more main stream concept still have all their feats to spend.
Then that's bad design. If character A takes feat X and character B takes feat Y instead, they should be equally strong mechanically (or roughly so). I am not saying that prestige classes should be replaced by weaker-than-average feats!
You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.
Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u]. It is strong but boring.So the solution is to make a class that's stronger in every way but more interesting? That's dumb.
Yes, it is dumb. Good thing he didn't say that, huh? Nowhere has he even hinted at any such solution. He (she?) has been trying to point out that feat chains are not a good alternative to prestige classes. He's said nothing about buffing prestige classes instead of fixing the base classes. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths.
You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.
So, your claim is that fighters are far superior to all other classes, because feats > class features? You're in a distinct minority there. Also, most of the prestige classes that are easily replaced by feat chains are fighter-based prestige classes. Why not roll them into the fighter?
You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.So, your claim is that fighters are far superior to all other classes, because feats > class features? You're in a distinct minority.
No. You're being deliberately obtuse. Also, stop putting words in peoples' mouths.
You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.
Unless you are a human fighter, then you are getting 22 feats in 20 levels.
First of all, voluntarily paying for something and getting something in return is not a tax. It's perfectly reasonable to get one feat's worth of abilities by paying one feat.And one feat's worth of abilities is far more valuable than a single class level.
The idea of a 'feat tax' is that feats are being paid to play a certain character concept, while other characters that are not any mechanically weaker (and often actually stronger) but follow a more main stream concept still have all their feats to spend.
There should never be prestige classes that are like "a cleric, but better"Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u]. It is strong but boring. All Cleric PrCs are either crap because they have interesting abilities but bring down it's spellcasting (thusly reducing it's overall effectiveness) or make it more powerful. There is no middle ground, and it's because the class is poorly designed. It has two class features. Spellcasting and turning. That's it. And that is boring and bad. It's not the well designed PrC's fault that it is meant to be tacked on to such a crappy (but so so powerful) base.
Actually clerics don't turn anymore, they channel. You have to pay a feat to actually turn. The cleric to me is the definition of "feat" taxed.
The current cleric is built to be a healer and well something else depending on your domains and spell selection.
I do think you can build a cleric with lower spell access and spellcasting power that isn't crap. Heck a good PrC for a fight/cleric similar to the EK would be fine. Heck drop the fart healing and domains for more fighting power would be just fine for a PrC to me as well.
Yes, it is dumb. Good thing he didn't say that, huh? Nowhere has he even hinted at any such solution. He (she?) has been trying to point out that feat chains are not a good alternative to prestige classes. He's said nothing about buffing prestige classes instead of fixing the base classes. Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths.Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u]. It is strong but boring.So the solution is to make a class that's stronger in every way but more interesting? That's dumb.
Then I don't understand what's being said at all. Here's the quote:
There should never be prestige classes that are like "a cleric, but better"
Again, this is the fault of the [u]cleric class[/u].
So what does that mean, if it doesn't mean "the cleric class is the problem and prestige classes that are strictly better than the cleric class are O.K."?
No. You're being deliberately obtuse. Also, stop putting words in peoples' mouths.You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.So, your claim is that fighters are far superior to all other classes, because feats > class features? You're in a distinct minority.
How do you figure? You told me that feats are more valuable than class features, and that most people only get 10 feats. Fighters get 10 more feats, plus some class features. Therefore, fighters should be better, by your logic. Unless you didn't really mean any of that. In which case you should put words in your own mouth, instead of leaving that to everyone else.
If you're going to accuse everyone of being "deliberately obtuse" when they point out what appear to be flaws in your logic, and then demand that they "stop putting words in your mouth," maybe you need to start by explaining what in God's name you actually mean, so that it makes sense.
You get 20 character levels. You only get 10 feats as a member of most classes. 20 > 10.Unless you are a human fighter, then you are getting 22 feats in 20 levels.
Thus the "most" in "as a member of most classes". Fighters are the about the only class that CAN get away with spending a ton of feats to gain what a prestige class could give them. That's a trap, though, because if you make that 5-feat chain that the fighter can easily pay for, you force the barbarian, ranger, or paladin to spend half of their total feats on it. It's disproportionate. It's the equivalent (literally) of having a prestige class with the entry requirements of "level 5 fighter OR BAB +10".
So what does that mean, if it doesn't mean "the cleric class is the problem and prestige classes that are strictly better than the cleric class are O.K."?
Isn't it obvious? It means exactly what it says (and EJo has said exactly this): the cleric sucks. If the cleric didn't suck, the exact same prestige class would be perfectly fine.
I don't understand how any conclusion can be drawn from that other than "cleric needs to be fixed". And, yet, you draw the conclusion of "EJo is advocating making good prestige classes into OMGBROKEN!!!! prestige classes".
So what does that mean, if it doesn't mean "the cleric class is the problem and prestige classes that are strictly better than the cleric class are O.K."?Isn't it obvious? It means exactly what it says (and EJo has said exactly this): the cleric sucks. If the cleric didn't suck, the exact same prestige class would be perfectly fine.
Then why are you arguing with me when I'm agreeing with you?
If you want the cleric class to be stronger, fix the cleric class, don't make a "Cleric++" prestige class.
(O.K., I meant to say "better", not "stronger". Sorry if I confused you.)
EJoThims, I think I love you.
I <3 you too.
And it's he, btw.
Let's take one class level in fighter.Or let's not, because it sucks.
Actually, I'll give it to you. Let's take two levels of Fighter. And let's take PA and maybe Cleave.
Now, let's have another character also takes two levels of Fighter and instead of PA and he'll take feats that allows him to pick pockets and open locks.
And then we'll take one level of Fighter and one level of Rogue. For his Fighter feat he'll take PA. He'll be a better attacker than the second, while being just as sneaky, but not quite as effective a Fighter as the first. This is the proper way to do things.
So the solution is to make a class that's stronger in every way but more interesting?Not at all. But no one in there right mind will leave it for a weaker and more interesting class, so the only option to make it more interesting is to make it the same power (or even greater) and interesting.
I am not saying that prestige classes should be replaced by weaker-than-average feats!No, you're just saying that they should be replaced by a feat chain that eats up feats (the more rare resource) instead of class levels. This is equally bad.
So, your claim is that fighters are far superior to all other classes, because feats > class features?Is a car-sized diamond greater than a car? More powerful? More effective?
Of course not.
But is it more valuable?
Of course.
Feats may not do as much as a class level all of the time, but they are a more valuable and limited resource. Consuming them to address an issue that should be addressed with class levels (such as character concept) is an unfair cost to those who want to address said issue.
It's the equivalent (literally) of having a prestige class with the entry requirements of "level 5 fighter OR BAB +10".
Let's look at the first PrC I turned into feats, the Reaping Mauler PrC. Basically, it's a fighter who's good at wrestling. Instead of fighter bonus feats and class features, he gets wrestling class features.
How do you figure? You told me that feats are more valuable than class features, and that most people only get 10 feats. Fighters get 10 more feats, plus some class features. Therefore, fighters should be better, by your logic.
Unless, of course, other peoples' class feature are better than fighters'! Gasp! What a concept. Is it your contention that level 9 spells are as strong as Bravery +5?
The sum of (fighter class features + fighter feats) is theoretically the same total value as the sum of (insert other class features + other class feats). That's because the fighter's class features are weak, but their feats are plentiful, while other classes have strong class features and weak or nonexistant feats.
That's grade 9 algebra, by the way. Simple A+20B = C+10B, solve for B. B = 1/10 * (C-A). In other words, each fighter bonus feat is theoretically worth 1/10 the difference between another class's class features and the fighter's class features.
However, I never said the game was balanced. I'm of the opinion that the figther is still too weak, though somewhat improved over 3.5. I'd say it actually comes out closer to 1/15 or 1/20 C-A. EDIT: This isn't because feats are less valuable, but rather because the fighter sucks.
Unless, of course, other peoples' class feature are better than fighters'! That's grade 9 algebra, by the way.
Yes! So follow it. If class features are better than feats, then feat chains are cheaper than PrC levels: more expensive in terms of feats for anyone but a fighter, yes, but less expensive in terms of class features that are actually more useful, for anyone else.
hogarth wrote:
So the solution is to make a class that's stronger in every way but more interesting?Not at all. But no one in there right mind will leave it for a weaker and more interesting class, so the only option to make it more interesting is to make it the same power (or even greater) and interesting.
I followed you up to "(or even greater)". To me, the Platonic ideal would be that a level in a prestige class and a level in the base class should be equally interesting and equally powerful, just different. Why should the prestige class be better?
Likewise for feats -- they should all be equally interesting and equally powerful (whether they're simulating some ability that was previously only available in a 3.5 prestige class or not).
Unless, of course, other peoples' class feature are better than fighters'! That's grade 9 algebra, by the way.Yes! So follow it. If class features are better than feats, then feat chains are cheaper than PrC levels: more expensive in terms of feats for anyone but a fighter, yes, but less expensive in terms of class features that are actually more useful, for anyone else.
Except, of course, that you don't give up the spells with most prestige classes, and even the classes that do give up spells only give up a level or two of them. Spellcasting prestige classes that entirely give up spells are never, ever taken. Thus, they don't figure into the equation of whether class levels or feats are more powerful. Ignoring spells, almost every other class feature is weaker than or of equivalent power to a feat (mostly weaker than, and the class features that are equivalent are usually gained at the same rate as or slower than feats are).
Except, of course, that you don't give up the spells with most prestige classes, and even the classes that do give up spells only give up a level or two of them.
Ah, and there we get to the point, when I said "most of the fighter-based PrCs can be turned into feat chains." I would NOT do that with, say, the Arcane Trickster, because it's essentially a "gestalt class," not a PrC. But I might consider making the Radiant Servant of Pelor feat-based, because all it is is a cleric with added abilities -- one that otherwise gives up exactly nothing to gain those abilities. A cleric 10/radiant servant 5 is a cleric 15 with free added abilities. In other words, mechanically-speaking, every cleric in the world should worship Pelor, and so gain access to that PrC, the way it stands. If you consider that to be right and proper, then that's really the source of the disagreement, and there's no way to reconcile that; we'll just have to disagree.
Why should the prestige class be better?
There's three main reasons.
Gamist: Because they have a cost, whereas base classes generally don't.
Economical: Because equality is theoretically nice but impossible in practice, and if you make them weaker then they're a waste of development time and page count, and thus the customer's money.
Simulationist: Because, generally speaking, they are better.
Why should the prestige class be better?There's three main reasons.
Gamist: Because they have a cost, whereas base classes generally don't.
The "cost" is the "feat tax" (if we're replacing it with one or more feats) or the loss of a class feature (if we're replacing it with an alternate class feature).
The other two points aren't worth addressing.
Except, of course, that you don't give up the spells with most prestige classes, and even the classes that do give up spells only give up a level or two of them.Ah, and there we get to the point, when I said "most of the fighter-based PrCs can be turned into feat chains."
Ahh. I missed the "fighter-based". I'm sorry, that's entirely my fault.
I still do want to caution that you have to keep in mind the ratio of feats, though. Even if all your feat chains prestige conversions are full-BAB classes, keep in mind that it's much harder and much more limiting for a non-fighter to take those feat chains. For example, does it really make sense that it's harder for a barbarian to become a Reaping Mauler, a concept dedicated to ripping their opponents apart with their bare hands, than it is for a fighter? It seems to me that both classes should be more-or-less equal at it. Yet, if you replace Reaping Mauler with a feat chain of more than 2 or maybe 3 feats, it becomes rather biased in favor of the fighter.
And, frankly, the barbarian isn't so well-off compared to the fighter that the fighter needs that kind of advantage. Personally, as an aside, I think the pathfinder barbarian may actually be weaker than the pathfinder fighter. The nerf from the beta version of the rage powers sucked hard.
The "cost" is the "feat tax" (if we're replacing it with one or more feats) or the loss of a class feature (if we're replacing it with an alternate class feature).
So... you're agreeing with me then? I'm confused. Honestly. I'm not sure what you meant by this statement. Can you please clarify?
Personally, as an aside, I think the pathfinder barbarian may actually be weaker than the pathfinder fighter. The nerf from the beta version of the rage powers sucked hard.
Agreed. The barbarian is still a weird bird, although slightly less so than in 3.5. Rage is a very useful combat ability, when used judiciously, but in 3.5 there was really no reason not to take just 1 level in barbarian and then move on to something better. In PF, the added rounds' duration in level increments and rage powers are a clear attempt to fix that. However, if rage powers were worth more than feats (which is fitting, since their use is situational), that would make a lot more sense than the current, overly-conservative rage powers.
He (she?) has been trying to point out that feat chains are not a good alternative to prestige classes.
Sorry to cut up your post but this is the line I want to get to.
I think in some cases your right, sometimes simply creating feat chains doesn't make a workable replacement for PrCs.
Sometimes though I think you are wrong. And it is very possible to create a feat chain that covers a PrC just fine.
I like the Knight Protectors, love the long history they have in the game, enjoy the idea they are fighting a slow and lossing war against chaos in the Great Kingdom. I could just as easily replace the entire PrC though with a string of feats. Iron Will, Improved Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Mounted combat and ride by attack. You take all those feats and what you end up with if you start as either a Fighter or Paladin is a Knight Protector. I could get close to it from Ranger too just takes heavy armor feat or even cleric with heavy armor as well. This to me is a good example of a PrC that can be made into a feat chain, I am sure there are some that don't work so neatly.
I feel it does help to eliminate from reworking PrCs that can be reworked with feat chains but I don't believe all can be, but I suspect there are many that can be.
I feel it does help to eliminate from reworking PrCs that can be reworked with feat chains but I don't believe all can be, but I suspect there are many that can be.
Exactly. And of the ones that stay PrCs, not all need to be indiscriminately powered-up. The Initiate of the Seven Veils doesn't need any added abilities, for example, and should probably be nerfed.
The "cost" is the "feat tax" (if we're replacing it with one or more feats) or the loss of a class feature (if we're replacing it with an alternate class feature).So... you're agreeing with me then? I'm confused. Honestly. I'm not sure what you meant by this statement. Can you please clarify?
I certainly agree that you should give up one ability if you want to get a different ability. But I believe that you should get what you pay for.
That is not the case with a prestige class like the Radiant Servant of Pelor, which is just "cleric, with some extra stuff".
Likewise, that is not the case with a prestige class that costs two crummy feats to enter, but then provides more than two feats' worth of abilities.
Oh, no one said it was impossible or even difficult to make feat chains to replace prestige classes. It really isn't, although some classes might need fairly wordy feats. The issue is over whether it's a good idea to do so. And, honestly, since this is the conversions forum, the only true judge of that particular issue is each individual DM. I personally agree with EJo that the only prestige classes that should be reduced to feats are the ones that can be reduced to just one or two, maaaaaaybe three feats. Anything longer than that and you start to really restrict options.
There's exceptions, of course. Master of Nine, for example, forced you to take a whole bunch of silly-useless feats in the first place (and it's not a strong prestige class, really, certainly not worth all the trouble it takes to qualify...). You actually lose nothing in translation for making it a 4 or 5 feat chain. I think it'd be better to re-write it without the silly feat prereqs, but I can't object that you'd be altering the balance of the class by making it into a long feat chain. Now that I think of it, though, I think you could probably do Mo9 in 2-3 feats with no problem.
Actually clerics don't turn anymore, they channel. You have to pay a feat to actually turn. The cleric to me is the definition of "feat" taxed.
The current cleric is built to be a healer and well something else depending on your domains and spell selection.
I do think you can build a cleric with lower spell access and spellcasting power that isn't crap. Heck a good PrC for a fight/cleric similar to the EK would be fine. Heck drop the fart healing and domains for more fighting power would be just fine for a PrC to me as well.
Using cleric spells correctly, even lower to mid level spells, you can build a very viable archer or melee specialist, even without domain special abilities.... for example:
Cleric archer (Human):
Feats: 1st (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot) 3rd (Rapid Shot) 5th (Zen Archery) 7th (Holy Warrior) 9th (Quicken Spell)
By the time you hit 9th level, you can a quicken divine favor (+3 to hit, +3 to damage), you add +5 to your damage if you have access to your highest level domain spell, you can cast blessed aim for +2 additional to hit (quickened if you have high enough wisdom), you add your wisdom bonus to hit rather than dexterity thanks to zen archery, and the list goes on.... So just from round 1 combat at 9th lvl:
"to hit" = 6 (BAB) + 3 (Divine Favor) + X (Wis modifier) + X (Magic enhancement modifier)
"damage" = 3 (Divine Favor) + 5 (Holy Warrior) + X (Magic enhancement modifier) + X (Str modifier if composite bow)
Clerics aren't feat taxed, or lacking flavor/boring. You can be a healer, a combat expert, defensive expert, you name it, if you take the time to plan your spells and feats correctly. Domains also add flavor and abilities... along with the diety followed. They might not get things like "trackless step" at 5th level, but they don't need to...
I personally agree with EJo that the only prestige classes that should be reduced to feats are the ones that can be reduced to just one or two, maaaaaaybe three feats. Anything longer than that and you start to really restrict options.
See, we're in agreement. But from my experience, probably 80+% of prestige classes have (at best) two or three interesting abilities and a bunch of "filler" since they're being stretched out over 10 levels (for no compelling reason).
The "cost" is the "feat tax" (if we're replacing it with one or more feats) or the loss of a class feature (if we're replacing it with an alternate class feature).So... you're agreeing with me then? I'm confused. Honestly. I'm not sure what you meant by this statement. Can you please clarify?I certainly agree that you should give up one ability if you want to get a different ability. But I believe that you should get what you pay for.
That is not the case with a prestige class like the Radiant Servant of Pelor, which is just "cleric, with some extra stuff".
Likewise, that is not the case with a prestige class that costs two crummy feats to enter, but then provides more than two feats' worth of abilities.
To be fair, Radiant Servant doesn't advance Pathfinder domain abilities. It's also not quite as good a class now because a couple of its class abilities don't do anything. It's also restricted to a single God (presumably Sarenrae in Golarion) and in my experience deity requirements are about the only roleplaying requirements that don't get regularly handwaved.
That all said, yes, pretty much every cleric of Pelor in 3.5 took Radiant Servant levels, and yes that's bad for the game. So we're in agreement there.
EDIT:
See, we're in agreement. But from my experience, probably 80+% of prestige classes have (at best) two or three interesting abilities and a bunch of "filler" since they're being stretched out over 10 levels (for no compelling reason).
Fair enough.
As a side note and speaking of classes with too many levels for no good reason, I was looking through CDiv for ideas recently and realized that the Void Disciple prestige class has 13 levels. I have no clue why. Totally baffled me.
Right now you could take a core class (abilities) plus feats and then add a prc on top, thus having class abilities+prc abilities+feats
But reduce a prc to a feat chain and you end up sacrificing some of those 'normal' feats and end up with class abilities+prc feats+less normal feats which equals less power than before (if doing a conversion for simplicities sake).
Let's not mention the fighter right now, I'll get back to him.
So, why would anyone do it? I have an idea:
[/]For the class in question[/i] prc feats are worth more than regular feats, or, feats are cheap for this class.
So, when converting the prc to a bunch of feats, consider the class(es) that thematically would use the prc, and then just make sure they are slightly more powerful (at the end of the chain) than the regular feats the base class has, or that the abundance of feats that the likely base class has is taken into account (not quite so powerful prc feat chain).
If the base class happens to be two classes, wizard and fighter for example, err on the side of less powerful. You're giving the character choice instead of raw power in any case.
Is there a problem with this approach?
The thing to remember, though, is that if a ranger (say) takes the duelist-simulation feats (to use your example), he still progresses as a ranger, with all the higher-level abilties thereof. As a ranger/duelist, he does not. Some of those abilities are feats themselves (combat style), and some are arguably better than feats, so he's got a net gain, not a net loss -- trading feats for higher-level primary class features is usually a good deal, unless you're a fighter in which case those class features ARE feats.
The "cost" is the "feat tax" (if we're replacing it with one or more feats) or the loss of a class feature (if we're replacing it with an alternate class feature).
And the cost of the PrC is the prereqs and the loss of some scaling on base class abilities.
I like the Knight Protectors, love the long history they have in the game, enjoy the idea they are fighting a slow and lossing war against chaos in the Great Kingdom. I could just as easily replace the entire PrC though with a string of feats. Iron Will, Improved Iron Will, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Mounted combat and ride by attack. You take all those feats and what you end up with if you start as either a Fighter or Paladin is a Knight Protector. I could get close to it from Ranger too just takes heavy armor feat or even cleric with heavy armor as well. This to me is a good example of a PrC that can be made into a feat chain, I am sure there are some that don't work so neatly.
I'm not saying that a bad PrC isn't essentially just a string of feats. I'm saying that taking the concepts and abilities of a PrC shouldn't be broken down into a chain of feats you have to take instead of your class levels. Because even the bad PrC that just grants the relevant feats has a better return on those concept specific abilities than simply snatching up those feats with another class.
And no, continuing to progress your base class instead of the PrC when you have a feat chain is not a proper alternative; stacking abilities that are entirely useless to your playstyle while paying more for the abilities you actually use is exactly the problem I am talking about here. It's the reason why PrCs should not be broken into feat chains 99% of the time.
I personally agree with EJo that the only prestige classes that should be reduced to feats are the ones that can be reduced to just one or two, maaaaaaybe three feats.
I actually think that if it can't be done with one (two on the extreme outside and only if both give great benefits), then it should be a PrC instead, even if only 3 or 5 levels.
|
Here is my attempt to convert daggerspell mage into a feat.
feat
arcane infusion
Prerequsite; spellcraft 3 ranks; arcane strike
benefit; as a swift action, you may give up a prepared spell or spell slot of 1st level or higher. you may add 1d6 per spell level to the damage roll of each melee attack you make within a number of rounds equal to the spells level. if fighting with 2 weapons, it applies to both weapons.
special; a 0 level spell cannot be sacrificed to fuel this feat, also it's bonus does not stack.
arcane infusion/daggercast the only reason to invest 7 levels in daggerspell mage. here it is. in feat form, without dagger restriction.
(especially as 5 of those levels are filler)
the only other features it got were sneak attack and spellcasting.
wasn't the daggerspell mage easy to convert? at the same time, it covers a variety of other classes
now for champion of correllon larethian
improved weapon finesse
prerequisite; weapon finesse, dexterity 15
benefit; in addition to applying your dexterity modifier in place of your strength modifier to attack rolls with weapons which recieve the benefit of the weapon finesse feat, you may also apply your dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier to damage rolls.
formerly graceful strike
so far 2 classes with only 1 good feature have been converted.
please critique these 2 conversions.
|
|
i simply abandondoned the shoehorned into using daggers thing. and turned it into an ability any gish build can use. and it's no longer restricted to rogue/wizard either. anyone who uses spells can benefit from.
the daggerspell mage tried neither to be a rogue nor a wizard but a gish. if you look above, in my previous post, it is now a feat any gish build can take.
for the champion of correlon, i appreciate the compliment on it's conversion. all it had was a few abilities eaten by the fighter and a feature that should have been a feat.
daggerspell mage was converted, not only to convert daggerspell mage exclusively but multiple other classes. (i'm looking at you duskblade and your prestigious one weapon niche cousins)