|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like pretty much what I would expect. He loses the benefit of his bloodline power because he can't really take the spell pen to make fireballs work.
Other people might consider going less chr heavy and make a gish with power attack.
Edit: I would probably model the character after a reach cleric. Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, and just being tanky. Combat Reflexes lets you keep buffing while doing damage.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have already been using this feat in a home game. As a note, this home game is a Wrath of the Righteous game, and we are at level 18/Mythic Tier 9, so we are far outside of PFS limits (so far outside). But I just figured as, you know, someone who actually has been using it in play, maybe my two cents would be useful?
My character is an arcanist 10/Riftwarden 8. Before the prestigious spellcaster feat existed, I had to decide if I was able to go Riftwarden. Most notably, I was designed around being our party's full arcane caster and the balance of Riftwarden meant that I was never going to be able to hit my 9th-level spells if I took all 10 levels of Riftwarden (as it takes 3 spellcasting levels as balance and arcanists receive 9th level spells at level 18). As result, I opted to take the feat twice (but not a third time). This allowed me to have access to this level of spells and the options within while being able to have access to Riftwarden abilities. Now, while some of this was really good (bonus to demon SR), others parts of the Riftwarden has... weird rules interactions (mostly,
I felt that I needed to have this feat for my Riftwarden to function even in the high-power, over-the-top game of mythic. I am not a power gamer (as most people who have played with me know).
The pain losing the possibility of ever casting certain spells hurt. This is relevant in PFS play, where there is the level cap of 11. That means that if a wizard loses just one spellcasting level, they won't ever be able to cast their 6th level spells - this is a very different psychological cost when compared to simply delaying access. Now, there are arcane options that already give out those spells and that players choose to play (notable arcanists and sorcerers), but the trade off these offer are more obvious that the trade offs with prestige classes.
However, This has also been in a specific home game context where the GM has heavily home-ruled for balance. This is not an option in PFS. There's no GM to say yes or no for certain prestige classes. Likewise, as mentioned earlier, there's no way to guess what prestige classes in the future would look like.
So, I feel conflicted about this. On the one hand, I have had the ability to play around with beforehand and I feel like it was worth it. However, I also worry about the health of the game state. I'm not currently aware of any degenerate builds using this but I know that this definitely raises power caps. After all, the DD/Sorcerer combination is nasty, as is the Holy Vindicator/Cleric combination.
Personally, I hope that we see it show up on chronicle sheets in a sort of "one character per player" option. I think that some access to this feat will diversify characters in a healthy way, while full unlimited access will lead to unhealthy changes. In addition, I honestly feel that this feat should allowed sooner rather than later, and not held off for years.
Perhaps this would be a good option to allow out via player boons or as a non-race option for GM boons (much like how Expanded Narrative used to paired).
|
|
The other thing to keep in mind is that we already have prestige classes that advance casting every level, but I still don't see those in play much.I am always surprised that we don't see more wizards go into bloatmage. You give up two feats for a lot of flexibility and no loss of casting. It may be that its from a slightly obscure source.
Wizards in general are on the decline. People don't like playing prepared spellcasters who normally don't do any martial combat and have limited class features.
|
|
The other thing to keep in mind is that we already have prestige classes that advance casting every level, but I still don't see those in play much.I am always surprised that we don't see more wizards go into bloatmage. You give up two feats for a lot of flexibility and no loss of casting. It may be that its from a slightly obscure source.
I'm not sure why we don't seem more of them, either. Or Envoys of Balance, or many of the other options. I'm just trying to establish that there are already prestige classes that don't give up spellcasting levels, and I personally still don't see much of them. This makes me wonder if there's going to be issues more with the power level between prestige classes. With the exception of the holy vindicator and the dragon disciple, however, it seems like many of the ones that give up spellcasting levels are seen as the "weaker" options and perhaps deserving of being lifted up.
|
You want an example? The Winter Witch Prestige Class becomes a pretty clear power up for a Winter Witch.
I'm not claiming that is necessarily a game breaking character but
1) A winter witch (without the prestige class) is definitely on the high end of the power curve. Reasonable people can disagree exactly where it is on that power curve but I don't think anybody would claim it isn't near the top.
2) Adding to that makes a powerful character more powerful. And a highly optimized Winter Witch is ALREADY too powerful :-(
I'm sure that there are other examples out there.
Edit:
I'd claim the following are all examples of classes that MAY become too powerful. They certainly get a very significant power up and, at first blush, gain more than the entry cost + 2 feats required to enter. Are they more powerful than hyper optimized alternatives? Maybe, maybe not. But does the PFS leadership really want to spend the effort to find out?
Storm Kindler. Storm Sight is quite powerful.
Rage Prophets just got a significant power up.
Tattooed Mystic
Pathfinder Savant
|
|
There are always players who like a challenge so even if a PrC is really bad once in a blue moon you'll hear about someone playing it. Same with people who deliberately build a chained rogue. Some people want hard mode.
But if prestige classes are "fine as is", where are the characters? I can name only two examples in my local meta. One of them is mine (Evangelist, wouldn't benefit from this feat; the other is a Riftwarden and he doesn't have room in his build for these feats).
I can say the same thing about my local meta with the bard, fighter, cavalier, druid, monk, wizard, gunslinger, witch, arcanist, skald, occultist, kineticist, medium, mesmerist, shaman, warpriest, etc. You get the picture.
There's just a lot of rogues(chained and unchained), rangers, oracles, sorcerers, barbs, and a few paladins. And then like maybe 1 or 2 of any other class.
But I've also seen shadow dancer, Dragon disciple, arcane archer, early entry MT, and holy vindicator all be played or having characters actively work towards them. PrC are very niche focused and they aren't always the direction you want to take your character.
|
|
You can't "break" the game more by adding spell levels back to a wizard, wizards already got that as is. But you can make wizards that are now even better characters. And that is the real question, do we want to allow wizards that have more class features now?
I don't doubt that you hardly see PrC, but I hardly see much casting classes, or "advanced character designed characters". In my experience most people won't multi-class at all and some even feel it's cheesy to think about it. Then a lot of people make a character off of theme and as such things like being an obese fatty isn't what they want, even if mechanically superior. So with these things combined it leads to people not playing PrC.
|
hmm....list of affected PFS legal Prestige classes (as per archives of nethys)
Arcane Archer
Daivrat
Dragon Disiple
Eldrich Knight
Holy Vindicator
Master Chymist
Mystery Cultist
Nature Warden
Pathfinder Savant
Rage Prophet
Riftwarden
Skyseeker
Storm Kindler
Tattooed Mystic
Winter Witch
And that's it. Kinda a short list. As written, doesn't look like it applies to classes that have only the option to gain spellcasting levels through another ability, like the Living Monolith with Ib Stone or Pathfinder Field Agent with Greater Casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing to keep in mind is that we already have prestige classes that advance casting every level, but I still don't see those in play much.I am always surprised that we don't see more wizards go into bloatmage. You give up two feats for a lot of flexibility and no loss of casting. It may be that its from a slightly obscure source.
I'm not. Self-image of a character matters to a lot of players. As noted before, a fair number of folks don't want to be Baron Harkonnen.
I have a Wizard/Loremaster in LSJ play. Loremaster doesn't give up any casting levels. In fact with a certain LSJ feat, I still get free spells per level as well.
People insisting that casters do not have need of their feats are being a bit disingenuous I think
It's called making a choice. People have been harping on PrC's that short caster levels. Paizo has simply established what they consider a fair price to recover them.
|
|
Self-image of a character matters to a lot of players.
Too true. Players that actually role play, greatly care about self image.
Another consideration is modeling. Although not really a required part of PFS, some players (like myself) are really keen on accurate models of their characters. Certain classes, races, weapons, and prestige classes can be very difficult to find accurate models for. The Pathfinder/Reaper models are very lacking in certain areas (like heavy armor small characters just don't exist).
|
|
People insisting that casters do not have need of their feats are being a bit disingenuous I think
Can you provide an example of casters that need of all of their feats? I've been asking, and none have been given.
Spell focus, greater, spell pen and greater. this is a SoS wizard.
Spell focus, spell specialization, spell pen and greater. this is a blaster wizard.
both use rods for metamagic. or go *human to pick up a meta if needed/wanted. *humans are the best for a reason.
Spell focus, augment summons, superior summons. this is a summoning wizard.
open, open, open, open, buffing utility wizard.
so care to share some common or frequent builds that need a ton of feats for a caster?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People insisting that casters do not have need of their feats are being a bit disingenuous I thinkCan you provide an example of casters that need of all of their feats? I've been asking, and none have been given.
Spell focus, greater, spell pen and greater. this is a SoS wizard.
Spell focus, spell specialization, spell pen and greater. this is a blaster wizard.
both use rods for metamagic. or go *human to pick up a meta if needed/wanted. *humans are the best for a reason.Spell focus, augment summons, superior summons. this is a summoning wizard.
open, open, open, open, buffing utility wizard.so care to share some common or frequent builds that need a ton of feats for a caster?
Hex Feats, Channeling Feats, Arcane Discovery, Combat Feats, General feats, feat taxes for qualification for other feats or the prestige classes themselves. It is really easy to be a cookie cutter in your one niche. It is much more difficult to be interesting when doing so.
Edit: Oh right druidic stuff.
Natural Spell, Planar Wildshape, Powerful Shape, Boon Companion.
Edit 2: What a luxury it be to somehow get Greater Elemental Focus on a build.
Oh and add improved familiar to the list.
|
|
so first, yes I know there are feats for wizardy types to take. It's not like they are deciding between skill focus basketweaving and skill focus balloon animals. But there aren't a lot of feats they NEED.
All of my character thinking about these PrC are assuming a full caster going a full caster build. Thus a druid wouldn't be interested in Planar Wildshape, Powerful Shape, Boon Companion.
And it seems like all the feats you're suggesting are nice to have feats. Not feats that are required for the build to operate.
TWF and ARCHERY needs the TWF feat and precise shot to function.
for blasting greater focus is nice to have, empower is good from a rod, traits are a nice to have choice.
Plus if you're in a PrC that only has 1 level loss of spellcasting then you free up another feat to make things work.
You're getting an interesting character by your PrC instead of by extra traits.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so first, yes I know there are feats for wizardy types to take. It's not like they are deciding between skill focus basketweaving and skill focus balloon animals. But there aren't a lot of feats they NEED.
Keep going on about wizards, but this feat greatly affects divine casters too.
For PFS play, Selective Channel (or Channel Ray) is a NEED feat for clerics, and other channeling classes.
And you keep going on about a full caster needing to focused exclusively in spellcasting, but the issue here isn't just about spell potency, it's one of spell access. Raise Dead, for example, is a 5th level cleric spell and a 6th level witch spell. That is definitely a spell that I want the cleric or witch in my party to have access to. I don't want that player having to choose between taking a Prestige Class and having useful support spells at high level.
And regarding the Dragon Disiple, the Sorcerer class is already nerfed in spell access over the wizard, getting their spells 1 level later than an equal wizard would. An 11th level Sorcerer can only cast 5th level spells. An 11th level Wizard can cast 6th level spells. The Dragon Disiple, with 5 levels sorcerer and 6 as dragon disiple, is normally casting spells as a 9th level sorcerer, so this 11th level character only has access to 4th level spells... Spending 3 feats to make them still worse than a wizard in spell access doesn't seem broken.
|
|
Most PFS clerics and other channelers I've seen and seen advice for don't ever take selective channel. Unless your a channeling focus build, in which case your not a spell focus cleric and thus don't need spellcasting feats, and are limited a lot to which PrC you can go into.
I'm saying that the builds you need to compare with for this feat are full casting focused builds, as those reap the most benefits from this. But sure, spell access, a "cleric" multi-classing into a PrC that doesn't progress casting doesn't care about casting raise dead. Just like if he multi-classed into any other class. Heck, this is PFS, I don't count on or figure that someone else in the party can bring me back to life since most tables, even high level ones, don't.
And the DD, a casting sorcerer DOESN'T go into it, because it does nothing but reduce casting. But when you compare a DD to a bard or magus you realize that you are a 9th level sorcerer, you have 4 4th level wizard spells (generally regarded as the best list) you can cast to their 2 4th level spells from their list. DD currently is for Gish's builds that want to swing a big stick, and use spells to make them better at that and maybe for some utility.
And remember, it's not "broken" as in the game is now ruined all hail our new god. It's that this option provides clearly superior build for minimal trade. And having a sorcerer get tons of 'free' survivability is superior. And 2 feats for that?, pretty minimal investment for it.
|
|
However, the question is what you want your character to do. For a save or suck caster at level 11, my goal is generally to push the mechanics of the roll to easier affect the enemy and to be harder to pass.
By the time I do that, I usually have a couple of feats left. Most of the feats above are pretty good, the question (to me, at least) is whether the PRCs which you would go into are better than what you get out of feats and if so, whether they power creep the game or disrupt other people's fun. On the flip side, it makes other options viable which were not before, so it's not all bad so long as those options are not -everywhere-.
So for a SoS caster you have a couple of feats left over? That is all that's needed, 2 feats gives you a prestige class for at least 4 levels.
And I agree that it's probably a better choice to take every SoS feat for a SoS build to make your 1 trick work. But if you're okay with having a DC32 instead of DC33 and having an init of +8(2 trait, 2 dex 4 scorpion) instead of +12 (or +13 instead of +17 for diviners) then you don't need those feats.
*****
The funniest thing about this to me is that we're debating this, but we don't have official word that the feat is really banned instead of them thinking it'd be nice to save for a boon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that the builds you need to compare with for this feat are full casting focused builds, as those reap the most benefits from this. But sure, spell access, a "cleric" multi-classing into a PrC that doesn't progress casting doesn't care about casting raise dead. Just like if he multi-classed into any other class. Heck, this is PFS, I don't count on or figure that someone else in the party can bring me back to life since most tables, even high level ones, don't.
So basically, your point is that since we don't presently have access to this feat, that a player making a character with one of these prestige classes, clearly indicates a character that doesn't value full casting over the abilities of the prestige class.
My arguement is that because of this feat, those Prestige classes are now (optionally) full casting prestige classes that PFS, for no clear balance reasons, has decided to nerf. Denying access to this feat is nerfing the prestige classes, despite this feat being newer than the prestige classes.
So for existing characters that would consider retraining for this feat if it was made legal, yes, I agree. For future characters, you have this all wrong, as it's about PFS nerfing certain prestige classes without a real reason.
And if the feat is made legal, future characters that don't value full casting, are still not required to take the feat. So allowing it won't affect the characters that care more about the abilities than they do full casting.
|
|
A lot of the PrC with casting just need X level spells and some skill points, Something easy for a wizard, a little harder for a cleric. A few require 1 feat, I would imagine that these would get chosen less unless you already wanted that feat.
EDIT:
Also I wouldn't be so sure that all the PrC were made with that feat in mind. From what I understand they send a lot to freelancers who make up a section, so unless someone told everyone to count on this feat they probably made the classes like normal, not assuming the feat existed.
|
|
EDIT:
Also I wouldn't be so sure that all the PrC were made with that feat in mind. From what I understand they send a lot to freelancers who make up a section, so unless someone told everyone to count on this feat they probably made the classes like normal, not assuming the feat existed.
Ultimately someone at Paizo makes the final version. I hear the stargazer got bumped from 1/2 bab to 3/4 between submission and release.
|
|
Ultimately someone at Paizo makes the final version. I hear the stargazer got bumped from 1/2 bab to 3/4 between submission and release.
This is correct. ^_^
|
|
I hardly think that they did much if any builds to see if the PrC were balanced with the feat. This is a splat book, they are allowed to be more rules-lose for cool and thematic. It was probably, hey this guy made a feat to increase PrC spellcasting. Sounds cool, push it.
And can you please define what you mean by "broken with the feat"
Because if you mean breaks the game then no, you can't beat wizard spells.
If you mean, the ability to create stronger characters than possible before, aka power creep, then I suggest this is it. Now I wouldn't mind if it was PFS legal, I don't have anything against it. But if we're going on the premise that it is banned and that there was a power level reason for the ban then I think that view is justifiable, as it possibly raises the max power available.
|
|
The Prestigious Spellcaster feat would be good, sure. Even if it makes you spend a second feat on pseudo-Toughness/CunningFrom the context, this makes it sound like there is a feat called "Cunning" that gives you an extra skill point per level, but I cannot find any such feat. Is there one? And if not what were you referring to?
It's in the Villain Codex
|
hmm....list of affected PFS legal Prestige classes (as per archives of nethys)
Arcane Archer
Daivrat
Dragon Disiple
Eldrich Knight
Holy Vindicator
Master Chymist
Mystery Cultist
Nature Warden
Pathfinder Savant
Rage Prophet
Riftwarden
Skyseeker
Storm Kindler
Tattooed Mystic
Winter WitchAnd that's it. Kinda a short list. As written, doesn't look like it applies to classes that have only the option to gain spellcasting levels through another ability, like the Living Monolith with Ib Stone or Pathfinder Field Agent with Greater Casting.
Missed Enchanting courtesan
Though I'm more disgruntled about the loss of the Thassolonian Spell Opposition feat
|
|
Missed Enchanting courtesanhmm....list of affected PFS legal Prestige classes (as per archives of nethys)
Arcane Archer
Daivrat
Dragon Disiple
Eldrich Knight
Holy Vindicator
Master Chymist
Mystery Cultist
Nature Warden
Pathfinder Savant
Rage Prophet
Riftwarden
Skyseeker
Storm Kindler
Tattooed Mystic
Winter WitchAnd that's it. Kinda a short list. As written, doesn't look like it applies to classes that have only the option to gain spellcasting levels through another ability, like the Living Monolith with Ib Stone or Pathfinder Field Agent with Greater Casting.
Not an Archives of Nethys prestige class, so it's not missing per say. But thanks.
Point was to put into perspective, that this feat really only affects a few handfuls of prestige classes.
|
When designers design a Prestige class they try to balance the abilities gained by including requirements, such as feats, or by limiting abilities, such as caster level increases.
This feat changes that design paradigm, since a designer now has to consider this feat in all design considerations of Prestige classes, Do these abilities balance with 1 caster level loss or 2 feats?
The mere existence of this feat, regardless of its inclusion in PFS, has brought this argument into existence. It does come down to a single questions, do 2 feats = one caster level and is this power creep?
Power creep should be avoided, diversity should be increased. Is the feat going to favor one side or the other?
Personally I think it is power creep. However, I am always looking at issues from my professional perspective of risk vs. reward. Does the risk of this amount of power creep worth the reward of more build diversity by the inclusion of more Prestige classes? I think it is worth it. Unfortunately, will this make those classes that take Prestige classes less diverse? I think it will. However, in my experience Prestige classes are uncommon and this may raise their presence in PFS. I think from a diversity perspective, this will increase rather than decrease diversity.
One other point I want to make. Paizo has learned a valuable lesson that it is easier to give something back rather than take something away. Perhaps they want to give this particular feat more time.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Louis: I'm not entirely comfortable with your designation of power creep. It sounds like any increase - including trying to bring a weak option in line with the middle of the pack - would count as power creep. And that sounds bad, so then you're already well on your way to saying no.
You point out that the original designers of prestige classes didn't have this feat in mind when balancing. However, considering how little prestige classes are used, I think they undershot the power level. Apparently all the awesome flavor is not enough to make up for the price you pay for it. And we're not rushing to that decision; we have nearly a decade of the game to look back on now.
You point out that it's easier to give than to take back. But we've waited for a very long time now and it hasn't made prestige classes more commonly played, so maybe it's time to push the boundaries a little now.
