|
He's the test I feel you need to do. For caster focused builds which feats are better than getting more spell levels? Spell focus' and a metamagic are 3 feats that leaves 3 feats for prestigious caster.
So if anything it's not that it leads to broken characters, but that it's better than any other feat options, thus "making it mandatory" to take these feats when considering PrC.
Make a caster sorcerer vs a caster DD and you see that everything is the same, except you got a large HP boost and extra AC and ....
So with all the perks that DD has plus full caster progression, what's the reason to stay pure sorcerer?
So I'm assuming it's "banned" on the principle of "niche protection" which is that it's banned because it would crowd out other currently legal options. Example: "why play a rogue when there's 12 classes that does it's job better" -> "PFS now bans all the options to replace a rogue thus keeping it a viable choice"
And this is assuming it actually is banned and not just held for chronicles. As held for chronicles means it is legal, but they want it to be special.
|
|
So if anything it's not that it leads to broken characters, but that it's better than any other feat options, thus "making it mandatory" to take these feats when considering PrC.I reject the argument that this is mandatory. It's an attractive option, certainly, for primary casters in the Sorcerer / DD case -- but it's also a somewhat unique case in that it's one of the few classes where the prestige class actually also continues the main classes core feature (bloodline). I would say that with most other prestige classes that lack such a direct carry over, continued progress into a prestige class isn't going to result in such synergy. But even in the sorcerer/DD case, there are plenty of other sorcerer dragon disciples who might choose two additional feats instead to be better at combat.
Can you think of feats that they'd want more than another spell level? Getting form of the dragon sooner, or the upgrades sooner, those are better boosts to combat damage than weapon focus. Plus at lv12 it's only using 2-3 feats for this. that leaves 3 feats to still pick up feats for their idea.
Yes DD is the most clear "upgrade" but look at full casters and what actually progresses. Wizard is loosing their lv8 thing, familiar progression and a bonus feat. the lv8 thing is the only thing to maybe not want to lose, for a very few. Cleric lose out on lv8 domain upgrades and the channel that they can do once per day.
Unless cleric goes holy vindicator and get to progress their channeling, then it's a BAB upgrade, and HP upgrade like the DD with no caster loss.
This feat is "mandatory" for PrC like power attack on a martial, like fey founding on a paladin, like all the archery feats for an archer, and augment summons for a summoning build. Things that are "mandatory" just because they are better than like every other option.
|
|
The potential upside is making a pile of somewhat unplayable PRCs viable, which gives your entire collection of Pathfinder materials more ability to be played. (and may contribute to people buying existing material to play in PFS, since it will now have more utility)
I believe this is a false premise. Most of the PrCs are viable, especially in PFS, as is. They just aren't "the most optimized thing ever." If you give full casting to casters of course it'll be used more. You're now trading basically nothing for something. It seems like it will be what I hear 3.5 was like, taking PrC for most characters since your base doesn't offer much besides the spell levels.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
f your argument seems almost dismissive of the power of feats for casters
I'm very dismissive of it. Rods do the metamagic feats better, and you usually only need 1 or 2 feats for a concept. There are fewer feat taxes and chains to really go into anything for casters, and pfs (rightly) doesn't have crafting so they're kind of just lying around.
especially where prestige classes are involved which might require some unorthodox tactics or other prereqs just to get into for marginal benefit.
Some do. Some don't. Some provide marginal benefit. Some are a pretty big boost. They also have to worry about the prestige classes that haven't been written yet, that might be balanced by the loss of a spell level.
Yes, the game would be helped if this worked for SOME prestige classes. But it would also be harmed if it was allowed for some others. Going through every prestige class that has been written and will be written and separating them out would be an enormous PITA
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoners can benefit from a lot of feats.
Blasters can benefit from a few feats.
Utility casters, battlefield control, and other generalists... well, they don't really need any feats at all.
I guess I come down on the side of understanding why Prestigious Spellcaster didn't get sanctioned. Spellcasting progression is really powerful for any 9th-level spellcaster because it's worth 1/2 of a new spell level, in addition to whatever other spells per day you get, which are also really good. And they do balance prestige classes around this--I know I've had characters take levels in prestige classes despite the lost caster levels, just because you knew going in that you were getting more out of the prestige class than you were losing by giving up the caster level. Negating that cost just for me sounds fun but that's not how organized play works. I think it's too powerful.
It's still pretty darn good for a 6th level caster, like a bard, where if you're not getting new spell levels you're getting more spells per day when you don't have all that many.
The only time I would start wondering about its utility would be if you had a 4th-level spellcasting class you were trying to advance with this feat. I wouldn't mind seeing prestigious paladin spellcasters in PFS...
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is that I have never done a prestige class with any of my casters because of the loss in spellcaster level. Bubbles the Hellknight will be my first prestige class ONLY because it does not trade off caster levels.
I'd love to do a Rift Warden, but don't consider them viable because of the loss in casting. I would love to see this option made available to make prestige classes a more viable option.
Hmm
|
|
All I know is that I have never done a prestige class with any of my casters because of the loss in spellcaster level. Bubbles the Hellknight will be my first prestige class ONLY because it does not trade off caster levels.
I'd love to do a Rift Warden, but don't consider them viable because of the loss in casting. I would love to see this option made available to make prestige classes a more viable option.
Hmm
Agreed with Hmm. Any time I've taken a prestige class on a caster if they lose progression was to make them a better fighter. If they lose progression as casters it isn't a "balanced" option it is bad.
If you're just looking at raw utility in encounters, consider the Pathfinder Savant. You lose a level of spellcasting progression but in exchange you can learn spells from other spell lists and can cast spells from scrolls at your caster level. That level of spellcasting you lose makes you weaker... but then you can carry around a ridiculous number of scrolls and it's like you've just doubled the number of spells per day you have.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That does it. I'm bringing a Prophet of Kallistrade to PaizoCon just to prove that any prestige class is playable.
On topic, I'm split on Prestigious Spellcaster. For some classes it's fine. An Eldritch Knight could be spending those two feats on combat feats instead of getting one spellcasting level. A Riftwarden right now can't use many of his class features against an equally CRed opponent because his spell levels are too low. But for others it's pretty powerful. Dragon Disciple is the poster child but you could make a seriously good Rage Prophet with that feat as well.
In a home game it would be a case-by-case decision for me.
|
|
I have a Pathfinder Savant, Holy Vindicator, and Eldritch Knight/Arcane Archer. I know some prestige classes can be used. Many can't especially if they lose more than 1 caster.
Oh, I see. I thought you were agreeing with with Hmm about never using prestige classes that cost spellcasting progression (unless they made them better fighters).
There certainly aren't as many good prestige classes as there are good archetypes, but I think they're similar in a lot of ways--Paizo is not afraid to publish truly weak prestige classes in the same way they're not afraid to publish truly weak archetypes. It doesn't mean that the mechanics behind either class option are necessarily bad.
Riftwarden is one that I'm sad about because it's really nowhere near powerful enough to justify losing that caster level as far as I can tell. But that's just poor design of that prestige class, in my opinion, not of the "lose a caster level" mechanic overall.
|
|
On topic, I'm split on Prestigious Spellcaster. For some classes it's fine. (omitted) Dragon Disciple is the poster child but you could make a seriously good Rage Prophet with that feat as well.
Are you doing anything differently with your Dragon Disciple than mine?
In my build I focused on strength at the expense of spell DCs - he basically can't act as an offensive caster, which hurts at high levels when you don't have pounce and you're a multiattack fighter with spells. It's easy to envision the scenario wherein you walk up to the enemy, they have True Seeing, ignore your mirror images and murder you for closing in on them since your AC is so bad.
I think he would be a blast to play as a switch hitter, but I don't think he's actually a great character the higher you go? Or at least, a straight Sorcerer would be better.
It's not the direct-attacking offensive spells you'd be after.
The Wizard/sorcerer list has some surprisingly good buff spells, especially in the Transmutation school. Not to mention access to utility spells far earlier than normal.
Edit: but my post was meant to say "don't just think about the Dragon Disciple, consider other classes when you are analyzing the usefulness of the feat."
|
|
This seems like another "There's a drawback that balances my extra power. Oh, and a feat to ignore the drawback!" situation.
Aside: Does it work with Evangelist if your aligned class is a spellcasting class?
Evangelist is one of the things I am more than willing to lose a level of spellcasting progression to (OMG skill points for int casters!!!111one) but the wording on the Prestigious Spellcaster feat would seem to preclude it from working with Evangelist, which doesn't have any of the caster level architecture the feat relies on.
|
|
This seems like another "There's a drawback that balances my extra power. Oh, and a set of two feats to ignore the drawback!" situation.
Aside: Does it work with Evangelist if your aligned class is a spellcasting class?
Hah, not sure about the Evangelist - I would argue that once you get Aligned Class that it does not work, "The Prestigious Spellcaster feat does not have any effect if your favored prestige class does not have the spells per day class feature, or if it does have the spells per day class feature but already grants a level increase for every level of the prestige class"
"you gain new spells per day as if the prestige class did grant +1 level of spellcasting for that level"
Since the prestige class DOES grant levels of spellcasting after you get Aligned Class, I think the feat should not work. But I think it could use clarification, to be sure.
Evangelist doesn't have the spells per day feature, though. That by itself would indicate the feat doesn't function for that class.
|
|
Evangelist doesn't have the spells per day feature, though. That by itself would indicate the feat doesn't function for that class.
It does if the class it is aligned to does for every level of evangelist after the first.
Evangelist is already near useless. If anyone wants to take it and then align another prestige class and then spend 2 feats for that lost progression back but still losing at least 1 progression.. more power to them.
The question is mostly bait. There really isn't any question about this just reading everything. It is even less likely anyone would delay their prestige class features in PFS play and triple feat tax themselves for it.
|
|
Evangelist doesn't have the spells per day feature, though. That by itself would indicate the feat doesn't function for that class.It does if the class it is aligned to does for every level of evangelist after the first.
Evangelist is already near useless. If anyone wants to take it and then align another prestige class and then spend 2 feats for that lost progression back but still losing at least 1 progression.. more power to them.
The question is mostly bait. There really isn't any question about this just reading everything. It is even less likely anyone would delay their prestige class features in PFS play and triple feat tax themselves for it.
Ha! Evangelist is actually pretty good in the right situation. Like any option, you have to know what you want out of it and plan accordingly. :) If all you want is MOAR SPELLCASTING though, you're right, it's not a good fit.
Non-prestige spellcasting classes don't have a "Spells per Day" class ability, they have a "Spells" class ability. Only prestige classes get the thing this feat cares about. Evangelist copies a class's abilities into itself, but it can't copy stuff that isn't there. Hence my conclusion... but it's not really a big deal either way.
|
Evangelist is awesome. (I've got at least two (with two more not yet levelled into it)). All told, I have a bunch of PrC characters.
The Prestigious Spellcaster feat would be good, sure. Even if it makes you spend a second feat on pseudo-Toughness/Cunning, the closest equivalent is Varisian Tattoo- -and that only applies to a subset of your spellcasting. (And that feat may be too good, too...)
Do any PrCs give more than two feats' worth of benefits and trade a casting level? If so, this becomes a must-have for Wizards and non-martial Clerics. Off the top of my head, Charming Courtesan certainly does, granting the ability to conceal spellcasting (a two-feat chain) right off the bat and then adding on more features from there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On topic, I'm split on Prestigious Spellcaster. For some classes it's fine. (omitted) Dragon Disciple is the poster child but you could make a seriously good Rage Prophet with that feat as well.
Are you doing anything differently with your Dragon Disciple than mine?
In my build I focused on strength at the expense of spell DCs - he basically can't act as an offensive caster, which hurts at high levels when you don't have pounce and you're a multiattack fighter with spells. It's easy to envision the scenario wherein you walk up to the enemy, they have True Seeing, ignore your mirror images and murder you for closing in on them since your AC is so bad.
I think he would be a blast to play as a switch hitter, but I don't think he's actually a great character the higher you go? Or at least, a straight Sorcerer would be better.
The issue isn't building a DD beat stick with more spell levels.
The issue is having a full casting DD caster that has lots more HP, BAB, saves, AC and bloodline powers and stats. Sure the caster caster doesn't care much for the str and bab, but hey maybe now he can do touch spells without finesse, and his ray spells are more accurate.The only reason NOT to go DD is if you really wanted an archetype that doesn't work with crossblooded, as crossblooded can get you any arcana and powers into the DD boosts.
For these 2 feats the sorcerer is getting 33 HP, almost 3 toughness's. 3 AC, which is 3 feats, blindsense, An extra breath weapon, and 2 fort saves, which is a feat.
So what reason does a draconic sorcerer have to not go DD and take the needed feats?
There are others that will have similar things.
The issue with PrC classes now is that caster's love casting, so any loss of casting is unforgivable. So even though the PrC makes for good and viable characters that have lots of casting, since "it's not the most optimized thing" it's viewed as unplayable.
|
|
Going into Charming Courtesan is only mandatory if its abilities are something which everyone wants AND if the value of these abilities is better than any other 2 feats in the game. In this case, flirting with your enemies and casting spells on them secretly. While I think this is a potentially good PRC, I don't see it being a mandatory option. It's certainly a bad pick for a dungeon crawl, and I don't see the other abilities in that class as being so useful that you will HAVE TO take them
The deal is the prestigious spellcaster feats will be considered mandatory on any PrC that grants casting.
Also with full casting on PrC there's little to no reason to stay pure wizard or pure cleric and not go into a PrC class of some sort. My bet is they don't want the majority of people to play PrC, so if PrC are easily and popularly viewed as better than the base class then PrC are in a spot that is not where they want them to be.
|
|
I've seen plenty of companions be level-3 and not take boon companion. If you just use it as a mount to move you it doesn't need to be max level.
And as I've gone over before. MOST of the PrC classes are not "so bad". They aren't played because they aren't meta, nor the MOST OPTIMAL choice. Once NOTHING is worth the loss of caster levels you've self selected them to be useless. But for many, loss of caster level for extra skill points or bonuses to stuff is fine. Once you've negated the main and basically only penalty for going into a PrC you'd see them spring up all over.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is a PrC character with 'recovered' spellcasting actually stronger than a regular full caster, who...?
- got his own class features
- didn't have to spend various resources to get into the PrC in the first place
- didn't have to spend two feats to get back on normal spellcasting track?
If Prestigious PrC casters aren't actually surpassing normal casters, what's the balance concern?
---
Prestigious Spellcaster was published in a book where 7/8 of the casting PrCs have at least one no-casting level. Isn't it likely those classes were actually balanced with the idea that Prestigious Spellcaster would be available? And if you leave it out, that they'd be worse than intended?
|
|
Agent of the Grave
Anchorite
Arcane Savant
Ashavic Dancer
Battle Herald
Bloodmage
Brewkeeper
Brightness Seeker
Brother of the Seal
Celestial Knight
Champion of the Enlightened
Chevalier
Coastal Pirate
Collegiate Arcanist
Crimson Assassin
Crimson Templar
Cyphermage
Daivrat
Darechaser
Dark Delver
Darkfire Adept
Deep Sea Pirate
Demoniac
Devoted Muse
Diabolist
Dissident of Dawn
Divine Assessor
Divine Scion
Envoy of Balance
Evangelist
Exalted
False Priest
Field Agent
Furious Guardian
Genie Binder
Golden Legionnaire
Grand Marshal
Gray Warden
Green Faith Acolyte
Group Leader
Guild Agent
Guild Poisoner
Halfling Opportunist
Harrower
Hell Knight Commander
Hell Knight Enforcer
Heritor Knight
Hinterlander
Holy Vindicator
Horizon Walker
Inheritor's Crusader
Justiciar
Lantern Bearer
Liberator
Lion Blade
Living Monolith
Low Templar
Mage of the Third Eye
Mammoth Rider
Master Chymist
Master of Storms
Master Spy
Natural Alchemist
Nature Warden
Noble Scion
Pain Taster
Pit Fighter
Planes Walker
Purity Legion Enforcer
Rage Prophet
Rose Warden
Runeguard
Sacred Sentinel
Sanctified Prophet
Scar Seeker
Sentinel
Sleepless Detective
Souleater
Soul Warden
Sphere Singer
Spherewalker
Stalwart Defender
Stargazer
Steel Falcon
Student of War
Sun Seeker
Swordlord
Tattooed Mystic
Technomancer
Umbral Agent
Veiled Illusionist
Winter Witch
Any of those that progress spellcasting.
Yes I'm saying with this that the new default would be for clerics and wizards to go into a prestige classes than not. Most likely EVERY PrC that progresses casting becomes a worth trade for these classes to spend feats on. How about you show some full casting builds that CAN'T work without every feat they have. Even your example of Spell Focus (enhantment), Greater Spell Focus (enchantment), Peace Maker leaves you with enough feats to regain 2 spell levels. So what am I giving up here? Plus humans have a free feat still, wizards will have a free feat and one of their bonus feats, and human wizards have 2 free feats and their bonus feat. Please share the builds that require 9 unalterable feats to work, or even 7 or 8 unalterable feats to work. And then prove that these feat intensive builds are the norm for spellcasters.
Current PrC works once you don't care that you have THE MOST spellcasting you realize that having a spell level or 2 lower than what you could be isn't crippling to all builds, namely the ones that go into PrC. Using them for buffs, Ooc buffs, and utility work just fine being a level below. It's still vastly superior to the amount a lot of classes are bringing.
We see this with classes. With the evangelist cleric, why play a bard, it doesn't have full 9th level spells, why trade down your spell progression? With a cleric why play a warpriest, it doesn't have full 9th level spells. Why lose out on spell progression? We are so okay with 6th level casters and 4th level casters having limited and weaker casting, but for some reason the idea of a 9th level caster having any delay is out of the question.
Like seriously, if WP was an archetype of cleric, everyone would say it's a garbage and useless archetype, you're delaying your spell levels and capping out at 6th level spells. But since it's advertises as a new class that is the martial with lots of cleric magic rather than a cleric with loss of spells we're all okay with it.