Post/Author/DateTime	Post
olothfaern 08-14-05, 04:09 PM	<NOTE> when I say caster level in the following text, I mean the handy line in the level progression chart that reads "+1 of existing class" (or something similar) </NOTE> So I read Stormwrack and I notice that all of the spellcasting PrCs lose at least one caster level (I think [working from memory]). It seems the trend to do that to spellcasting PrCs has increased of late. Don't you remember that time in ages past when the reason for a spellcasting PrC to lose a caster level (or more) was for a REALLY good ability, something that could arguably be worth a caster level? Now everytime a designer comes up with a non-standard ability for a PrC it looks like the first game balance maintenance option is to drop a caster level or two. This recommendation has to be passed down from on high, right? Because I have to believe game designers (as overworked as they may be) can't be that lazy, there are other ways to balance spellcasting PrCs. Take wizards for example... in a 10 level PrC a wizard loses 10 level of familiar progression and two bonus feats. Shouldn't this mean that a PrC attractive to wizards should grant at least two feat-like abilities and a level dependant class feature just to maintain balance? In addition, the fact that you have to meet requirements just to join a PrC is its own balance mechanic which should also pay dividends to the character investing levels in the class. Without going in to pedantic mathematical equations, lets compare base attack bonus based characters to spellcasters as they level up... When a BAB chr hits a break point in his BAB he gets an extra attack, at first its based at +1 but will improve over time; kinda like a bit of fluff, not really effective against things of his CR, but it could be useful. (Think of a 10th level fighter going to 11th) When a spellcaster hits a break point in his caster level he gets access to a new level of spells which is higher than his other previous levels of spells; as spells of a higher level tend to have greater effect, these spells are a huge part of the character's effect on things of his CR. (Think of a 10th level wizard going to 11th) The ability that you get to replace a lost caster level should be 'killer' and it should scale because in most cases it is suboptimal to lose a caster level, Delaying a spellcaster's advancement is absolutly deadly, especially if he's a spontaneous (or other 'level behind' type caster). Or, am I wrong?
Yare 08-14-05, 06:32 PM	So... you're of the school that believes a "Wizard 10/XXXXX 10" should be superior to a Wizard 20 in all cases, eh? Spellcasting is already more powerful and versitile than any melee or ability-based character could ever be (to the point where I personally believe that magic in 3.X is unbalanced) -and so you think that you deserve full casting PrC's that ALSO allow you to have some combat or special abilities? Free spellcasting and awesome abilities for everyone! WHEEEEEE! It doesn't need to be a "killer" ability. It needs to be ANY ability. Spellcasting already trumps everything else.
olothfaern 08-14-05, 06:50 PM	...I do not believe that. If said PrC has 2 feat-like abilities and a level dependant class ability and no prereqs that lie outside normal progression, then it should be EQUAL to 10 levels of wizard. When designers talk about prereqs they tend to favor more/better abilies for stricter/more demanding prereqs. So, to restate, a PrC should be equal to the class that would most likely lead into it and the more stringent the prereqs, the more you should get out of said PrC. Your 'spellcasters are too powerful' rant, while a valid opinion is really a thread hi-jack waiting to happen, if you'd like to discuss that there are PLENTY of OTHER places in which you may lend your opinion to that debate.
Crosswind 08-14-05, 06:53 PM	I tend to weigh in with Yare here. How many people do you see going Wizard 20? Not very many, because the abilities granted by many PRCs far, far, far outweigh the costs of taking them. If more PRCs had been intelligently crafted with losses of caster level, taking a PRC wouldn't be the no-brainer that it is. -Cross
FireEyes 08-14-05, 07:05 PM	How many people do you see going Wizard 20? How many prereqs does Wizard20 have? Now compare: How many prereqs does Wizard10/PrC10 have? You pay to get into a PrC, then the PrC gimps your spellcasting. They either need small prereqs, or no caster level loss. Oh. And I've played Wizard20. Alot. Even in groups with people with PrCs out the wazoo.
Rundor The Mighty 08-14-05, 07:19 PM	Yes the wizards are too powerful argument does not belong in this thread. What IS worth discussing is this: The incantatrix/tar gives FULL spellcasting progression along with some great abilities. Now compare that to the palemaster which I believe loses 1 level of spellcasting. Which classes abilities are greater? BHAHAAHAHA Now onto the next thing is I have been seeing a lot of spellcasting prcs that lose an insane amount of levels and for WHAT. The master transmorgrifer loses 5 casting levels and is pretty much completely inferior without shapechange to a full spellcasting regular wizard and his abilities are medicore at best...I lose 5 levels for THIS garbage? It is just bad balancing, and it happends everywhere (as in outside of D&D). That's why you have houseruling.
Crosswind 08-14-05, 07:38 PM	I agree. Incantatrix (and other full casting progression PRCs), compared to other spellcasting PRCs, is not balanced. Now, you could go say "All the other PRCs aren't balanced!"...or you could observe that, balance-wise, Incantatrix is too good. Yes, PRCs have pre-requisites that you must sacrifice feats to meet. However, if the PRCs were not exceptionally worth it, people would not be using them in their builds. And the vast, vast majority of builds for spellcasters out there use PRCs. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, FireEyes, other than that you seem to be angry that there exist PRCs that are not, in fact, complete no-brainers to take. -Cross
FireEyes 08-14-05, 07:59 PM	I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, FireEyes, other than that you seem to be angry that there exist PRCs that are not, in fact, complete no-brainers to take. Err. I have no idea were you got that, other than you made it up. PrCs levels are not, and where never supposed to be, equal to normal character levels. You pay to take the class. You give up something. Feats, skill points, etc. If you didnt give up anything, then I would agree with the idea that PrC and Base Classes should be equal. The weaker, and more numerous, the prereqs are, the stronger the abilities of the PrC should be. You also have to account for WHEN you can take the class, vs when you have to meet the requirements. If you need a worthless feat, but can't enter the class till you have 4th level spells, you are going to spend at least 3 levels with a gimped feat tacked on you, before you even SEE the benifits. Also, your saves suffer, with the exception of Will. Using Incantrix to argue that PrCs for spellcasters are broken is like point to the hulking hurler as a reason full BAB bonus classes are broken. It doesn't prove anything either way.
Caelic 08-14-05, 10:20 PM	PrCs levels are not, and where never supposed to be, equal to normal character levels. Categorically false. They were, indeed, supposed to be equal to normal character levels, or perhaps marginally more powerful--just more focused.
FireEyes 08-14-05, 10:35 PM	Categorically false. They were, indeed, supposed to be equal to normal character levels, or perhaps marginally more powerful--just more focused. Ah, but I have backup for my point :) The 3.0 DMG (which is alot more conservative on the topc) says otherwise. For instance, it says: "Prestige Classes should offer a number of special abilities, including at least some not availabe anyin any other way. Qualifying for a prestige class is difficult, so the rewards should be substantial." When talking about designing them, it goes on to say "A prestige class should be at least as powerful as a normal character class and - if the requirements are high - it might even be more powerful." I added the bolding. That does not mean that a PrC should be equal to a character class. It should be at least (meaning never weaker than) a character class. It should be as powerful as the requirements allow it to be. Requiring 3 useless feats, and not allowing a character to enter till 10th level should result in a PrC more powerful than one with 1 feat requirement that can be entered into at 5th level. Unfortunately, some PrC designers at WoTC dont adhere to this, and we get things that are overly powerful. So instead of trying to balance them with higher requirements, the reaction is to universally gut out their caster levels.
FireEyes 08-14-05, 10:56 PM	Just to clear up something, real fast: I'm not saying PrCs should be more powerful by virtue of the fact they are PrCs. I'm saying they should be more powerful, based on their requirements. Crap requirements? You get crap abilities. OMG I SUCKED FOR 10 LEVELS FOR THIS requirements: You get ultra powerful abilities ^^;
Eidolon Faer 08-14-05, 11:55 PM	(1) Until the release of Complete Adventurer, my basic beef with Wiz 20 or Sorc 20 was that levels in ability to be a familiar's master are purely a liability, since all they do is cost you more XP when the useless little vermin dies. Familiars utterly fail to grant the kind of utility that justifies their existence as a class defining feature. (2) With the advent of Complete Adventurer, any schmuck can spend a feat and obtain a familiar, so long as he can manage to claim an Arcane spellcaster level somehow. Tell me, how many Bards raced out and took that feat? (3) So, by taking a PrC that grants full or near-full spellcasting progression, you gain class abilities that the base Sorc or Wizard does not, AND you dump a liability. Namely that stupid pet rat that costs you 4,000 xp every time you step on him in the dark when headed to the kitchen for a glass of water. The problem is that, frankly, the Wizard class sucks and the Sorcerer class sucks even harder. Look at what can be done by a Druid and tell me again why they need a USEFUL animal companion to balance them vs. the Wizard.
NineInchNall 08-14-05, 11:57 PM	^ || :clap:
beaver1024 08-15-05, 12:08 AM	(1) Until the release of Complete Adventurer, my basic beef with Wiz 20 or Sorc 20 was that levels in ability to be a familiar's master are purely a liability, since all they do is cost you more XP when the useless little vermin dies. Familiars utterly fail to grant the kind of utility that justifies their existence as a class defining feature. (2) With the advent of Complete Adventurer, any schmuck can spend a feat and obtain a familiar, so long as he can manage to claim an Arcane spellcaster level somehow. Tell me, how many Bards raced out and took that feat? (3) So, by taking a PrC that grants full or near-full spellcasting progression, you gain class abilities that the base Sorc or Wizard does not, AND you dump a liability. Namely that stupid pet rat that costs you 4,000 xp every time you step on him in the dark when headed to the kitchen for a glass of water. The problem is that, frankly, the Wizard class sucks and the Sorcerer class sucks even harder. Look at what can be done by a Druid and tell me again why they need a USEFUL animal companion to balance them vs. the Wizard. Well said. I would add that the designers (particular the 3.5 designers) are horribly biased.
amalcon 08-15-05, 12:24 AM	The whole "the PrC should be awesome because of the requirements" thing is flawed, simply because you do not PAY the requirements. You just need to have them. All the requirement does is encourage you to work a specific thing into your character design. Unless the requirements are completely useless (Toughness feat) or contradictory (Speak Language: Druidic + Bardic knowledge + Evasion), they shouldn't provide a significant boost to the PrC's power level. Iron Will, Weapon Focus, and Point-Blank Shot are all quite useful (heck, pretty much all the feats except Toughness and some skill foci probably are -- keep in mind skills are often opposed rolls, making the foci not actually scale down with level). The problem, as I see it, is that people have grown too accustomed to these overpowering mage PrC's. They make most of the truly absurd characters possible (the most notable exception being the druid, who is arguably better straight up than PrC'd). People have become too used to the idea that lost caster level = end of the world. I, personally, am glad to see some reason to play the base classes all the way up returning. And no, familiars are not it. The familiar is the most incredibly front-loaded "level-based" ability around. The best ability comes on the first level.
Eidolon Faer 08-15-05, 12:50 AM	The familiar is the most incredibly front-loaded "level-based" ability around. The best ability comes on the first level. ...and what exactly would that be? The satisfaction of strangling it and knowing that it'll never be cheaper to get out of the way than at level 1? Let's be brutally honest here, familiars aren't good scouts and spies. That's what Rogues are for and a level 1 Rogue will blow a familiar out of the water. You want Alertness, play an Elf. And besides, since most Sorcerers and Wizards have base Spot and Listen checks of...oh...+0 before the familiar, it's not like that +2 does a speck of good against those halfling ninjas with their +15 Hide skill at level 1. They're utterly useless in combat. Unlike Druid animal companions which actually (1) get combat stats and (2) are expendable with no consequence to the Druid, Wizard familiars simply are too fragile and valuable to risk against any foe who's not a blithering imbecile. Let's face it, PC Druids would send their animal companions into a dungeon to trigger all the traps and get squished by them if they could figure a way around the 24 hour ritual to bond them. It's like the famous ranger with the bag of infinite chickens. Frankly, the only class for which a familiar is an asset is the Hexblade. Ten-sided hit dice means that "half master's hitpoints" can still be a respectable number, and fighter BAB means that the familiar can actually hit something from time to time. Tack on Improved Familiar to get something tasty (like a Hippogriff or Winter Wolf) and you've got a viable combat partner. The only (and I mean *only*) other use for a familiar I've found is to acquire a Formian Worker via Improved Familiar and have it sit in your house plying craft skills. It has all your ranks in craft skills, plus one you don't have at +10. After a few decades of this, it might even pull in enough coin crafting suits of Masterwork Armor to pay for some of the costs involved in scribing spells to your spellbook. And, of course, getting your Tanglefoot Bags wholesale cannot hurt either.
Pull My Finger of Death 08-15-05, 01:38 AM	One more vote for the "losing one or more caster levels in a PrC is a cop out and pretty much kills the PrC for any player with even half an eye towards optimization" side.
SigmaJargon 08-15-05, 03:03 AM	To the familiar-haters, I say you need to read Wyrd's How to get the maximum out of your familiar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=193357) thread. My personal favorite familiar trick is to invest in Use Magic Device ranks and let your familiar blast away with whatever wands/staves you find.
Timlagor 08-15-05, 04:27 AM	You need an Improved familiar for that of course... On my way to level 7, I have got a great deal of mielage from my hawk familiar without it dying ones. It has scouted and spotted for me (+16 to spot and low light vision). It has delivered Touches of Idiocy and Shocking Grasps in large and extremely useful numbers to suitable targets (clerics with shield and symbol in hand, archers, anyone glitterdusted) It has had good AC with MAge Armour and reasonable HP with False Life. EDIT: Oh yeah losing caster levels really really sucks. You need something really very major for it to be worthwhile from a CO standpoint (especially with all the PrCs that do grant full progression!).
HCCommander 08-15-05, 05:21 AM	I'm just glad there's nothing like a DCI for D&D or we would soon see "Standard", "Extended" and "Vintage" formats. They screwed up with classes like Incantatrix. They could have repaired the damage with 3.5 but they failed. (Much is better in 3.5 but the Incantatrix is worse and some other PRCs are, too.) So what to do? One thing is fore sure: Each book raises the overall power level. They try to stop that. But I guess while the new PRCs would help, no one will take them as long as the old PRCs are around. So the problem remains. Already many DMs I know are banning classes like Incantatrix and forbid to enter a PRC for a character that has a PRC and hasn't finished it. It's debatable if there are better ways to keep the power level down but it helps. I already considered allowing UA-LA-pay-off for non-casters only, but the tank players start turning the tide and use magic-hate-abilities. That's also quite effective.
Lilt 08-15-05, 06:00 AM	Generally speaking I agree that many PrCs lose casting progression needlessly. Although moving from sorcerer only loses you familiar progression (and some feats in the case of wizard) it takes a very powerful ability, probably even one that scales with character level, to compare with the blow that is a loss of caster level. powerful abilities that are worth a loss in caster progression do exist, however. Take the war-weaver PrC from HoB: it loses a caster progression but gradually gains the ability to cast 4 spells of 5th level and below simultaniously on multiple targets as a move action. IMHO that can be worth it for a character, even with the otherwise sub-optimal entry requirements of Craft (Weaving) and Enlarge Spell (IMHO a metamagic rod is a better choice). It's not a no-brainer though, as it would be if it didn't lose a aster progression. Master Transmogrifist would be a poor choice CO-wise if it weren't for the breakable nature of polymorphing magic and the class abilities granted. As it happens, the MT is either underpowered or broken depending on what you do with it, which I think makes it poorly designed. At-least if it was reasonably powerful, which could be achieved by reducing the caster progression loss to 2 or 3 so that it eventually got 9th level spells, there could be valid uses for the class which weren't simply broken combos. In terms of what is optimal and what isn't entry-requirements-wise: Iron Will: Your will save is through the roof anyway. Alertness (or any +2+2 feat): Not worth it without good skills anyway Skill Focus: Not worth it unless you've maxxed the skill and it's an opposed one like Hide/Spot/Bluff or a tough one like Search/Disable Device. Endurance: Has anyone ever had to make those checks? Toughness: Only worth a feat for low-level characters (1-2, maybe 3)
imneuromancer 08-15-05, 08:42 AM	Huh, so is the Master of Radiance special ability worth it? Lose one caster level over the five levels of MoR, but gain essentially 30 searing light or sunbeam spells? (actually, more like 5 sunbeam spells at higher level, but you get them at lower level, and it is not normally a cleric spell, except as Sun Domain) Just wondering because I *THINK* I have a neat non-radiant-servant-of-pelor build, but i want to know if that one caster level is going to handicap me.... Thanks!
Lilt 08-15-05, 09:24 AM	If you're not fighting undead or creatures with weaknesses to bright light I'd say it probably would handicap you. Spellcasting is general power, useful against all opponents. A well buffed cleric will usually be doing more than 5d8 damage per round even considering that the attacks are touch attacks. The blinding effect of the sunbeam spell is the main redeeming factor, it is powerful at level 10 where the save DCs will be 2 higher than most of your other attacks, but even those attacks fail to scale with level like most spellcasting does. As your character nears level 20, I suspect you'd be better-off with a level of casting for extra 8th and 9th level spell slots.
Griff_Goodbeard 08-15-05, 10:14 AM	Wizards gain Scribe Scroll free at 1st level and a bonus metamagic or item creation feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. There are two reasons for your wizard not to switch to a PrC immediately at 6th level. One is for the bonus feats at 10th, 15th & 20th. The other is to continue advancing your familiar (according to table on page 53). However, plenty of PrC’s give you FAR superior benefits than a mere feat and advanced familiar so I would NEVER remain in Wizard past 5th. (I.e. the wizard class has an “expiration date” of 5th level.) emphasis mine Seems that the optimiztion guru's around here agree that ANY PrC is better than going straight wizard (and straight sorc doesn't even get to look forward to bonus feats). Personally I'm glad that the new PrC wizard's are putting out lose a caster level. I would like it better if they when back and rewrote a lot of the older PrC to give them a caster level hit. Isn't the test for if something is broken is that every player chooses it? It seems that PrC for casters have evoloved into just this.
Lilt 08-15-05, 10:48 AM	Isn't the test for if something is broken is that every player chooses it?Does that make power attack broken? The test for brokenness is when not using it becomes not an option in-order to be competitive. IE: Haste in 3.0 was broken because everybody needed it. It let casters cast 2 spells, it let fighters move and full attack, it basically doubbled the effectiveness of everyone who had it not to mention the significant defensive advantages it granted. I'll expect to see character optimisers playing Sorcerer or Wizard 20 when I see character optimisers playing Fighter 20. If they made every casting PrC with incomplete casting then I'd expect them to make every fighting PrC with cleric or wizard BAB and reduced hit-dice. The problem with Fighter/Sorcerer/Wizard is not that PrCs are too powerful but that they don't give enough abilities to make staying in them worthwhile. Yes, I know that all of the above is about perspective. From the precident set by the PrCs available in earlier content, PrCs generally grant power bonuses whilst maintaining key ability progressions (Casting/BAB+HD) thus unless new PrCs do the same they can expect to be ignored by the COers.
Caelic 08-15-05, 11:18 AM	It seems to me that this is WotC's attempt to fight the rampant "power creep" that has pervaded third edition since shortly after its inception. Frankly, I have no problem with it, and I don't think it's going to hurt them in the slightest. If the hardcore CO crowd chooses to snub certain classes, that's their perogative. It's not like they don't have enough full-casting PrCs to play with already.
Jimbo19 08-15-05, 11:50 AM	Have to agree with the OP. DnD needs to look hard at their core spell casting classes. I thought they did that going to 3.5. Hence the huge nerfs to DC's. But then they left in familiars, and the costs of playing a wizard, if you go stictly by the rules, is just staggering for PC's. That is why no one plays by the rules. I mean how many wizard PC's by every focus needed for any spell? Just paying to buy new scrolls and scribe them into your book is expensive and will keep a wizard broke. So then they trot out the PRC's with 1 or more spell casting level loss. Umm who are you kidding WoTC? Noboby is playing those classes. Stop all the arcane PRC's with the huge hits to caster level. Or just label them as Splat Book filler material, at least then you would be honest.
Eidolon Faer 08-15-05, 12:05 PM	I would argue that it's worth the loss of a single caster level just to escape the Wizard or Sorcerer base classes.
ancalimohtar 08-15-05, 12:19 PM	I hate getting a new book, flipping greedily through the PrC section, and then getting disappointed every time a caster PrC loses a Caster Progression Level at first class level. CPLs are the bread and butter of casters, as everybody knows. So much so, that it's tough to find other things to take away to balance powers given. So, we have five possible solutions, four of which are viable: 1. Take away a caster level, but give the PrC ridiculous powers. The best example is the War Weaver, which is, hands down, the most powerful prestige class available to party-friendly wizards. You simply cannot get better than the WW, and compared to its given powers, the CPL hit is completely dwarfed. 2. Ask for stupid-expensive requirements and/or delay payoff. Example? Archmage. You waste two or three of the few feats you'll ever get, and you can't even enter the class until you get 7th level spells--long delay, big payoff. This is a particularly annoying way to balance the class (though it fits for the Archmage archetype), because you just suck monkey turds for ten levels, during which you hate playing the stupid character, and then all of a sudden your power level shoots through the roof and you take over the world. 3. Don't take away a caster level or ask for lots of requirements; instead, give crappy powers. These are the classes whose class abilities you read over and go "meh," then use as filler for the last few levels in a requirement-intensive build. 4. The non-viable one: Drop progression to half, and give abilities that suck. Example? Mindbender. The suck of the suck. It's used by casters to grab a strong Fort save at level 1. They could have printed that 1st level and been done with it. 5. The solution they don't use much, but which I hope they will, because it's the best idea: Don't take away a caster level, and ask for appropriate requirements. However, balance good class abilities by taking away OTHER stuff casters are used to. For example, the Incantatrix bans a school of magic. Archmage asks you, in addition to the sizable requirements, to permanently lose spell slots for each High Arcana. A prestige class could ban you from, say, casting all spells with the [Force] descriptor, or drop your caster level (CL, not CPL!) by 1 for all spells, or 2 for all spells within X school/with [X] descriptor, etc. Or it could drop your Intelligence permanently by 2, or it could do a TON of other things that hamper spellcasters in some way. The upshot is that inevitably, we as minmaxers will need to use our "min" skill a bit more often, and minimize the reliance on X school of magic or spells with the [Force] descriptor, or spells that heavily rely on CL, or DCs, depending on which penalty the PrC gives. The resulting character will be much more specialized and have a unique playing style--what if a PrC banned the casting of any polymorph-like spell (disguise self, alter self, (baleful) polymorph, shapechange)? Tactics would drastically change. BUT THAT'S THE POINT OF A PRESTIGE CLASS! To encourage character diversity and real specialization, not just school specialization. I just think Wizards has gotten lazy with balancing prestige classes, and instead of taking away any of a billion things, relies on taking away CPLs.
imneuromancer 08-15-05, 12:29 PM	I would stay in wizard for at least 6th level just to get the +1 BAB/Fort/Ref/Will saves. It surprises me that a CO board would overlook the NUMBERS that constitute a character. Let's say there was a special ability of a PrC that gave you +1 to +1 BAB/Fort/Ref/Will Saves (which is essentially what one more level in wizard gives you). Would you rather have that ability, or the ability that you are getting from the PrC? You have to balance that out for every level of the PrC to see if it is of benefit (I.e. if you get a really cool ability at 10th level of a PrC, but for that whole time you had slightly lower saves, it may not be worth it). This is, of course, assuming you don't play by the UA rules for partial saves, etc. *ALSO* Thanks, Lilt, for the advice. We will be playing mostly the "lower levels", I suspect, so I am thinking that the various sunlight abilities of the MoR will be pretty powerful. Based on what I see, caster level really hurts the higher level you play. At lower levels, the special abilities (esp. for MoR) can make up for loss of caster level. I don't see us going past 12th-level for a LONG LONG time (if ever). I have been looking at the various spell charts, and it seems to me that at low levels I am not missing out on that many spells, and will be gaining a great deal of power, especially considering we generally "iron man" our sessions. "Iron Man" meaning we keep chugging along in a Dungeon until we run out of spells and HP, so the more spells per day we get, the longer we can go and the more likely we are to succeed. Any more ideas/comments/suggestions are welcome, though!
Dr Durothil 08-15-05, 12:56 PM	I don't like the idea that some DMs have of forcing someone to take all 10 levels of a PrC, but I think it is good to give these classes an incentive to have all 10 levels taken. A good ability at the 10th level is one such incentive, but the first level is just as important as the 10th in encouraging people to keep their PrCs. Giving an ability that scales with level (such as the AC bonus that the Duelist and Bladesinger get) or a CL hit is a good way to prevent cherry pickers from taking tons of front-loaded classes. Hopefully, WotC learns from its errors. Personally, I find that the new books (based on envrionments or monster kinds) are an interesting concept to start with, so if they also have more balanced material, kudos to Wizards. Fortunately, by the next rules revision or edition, they'll know how to serve us some real balance... unless they go with a completely open classless point-based system which would give them just the pretext they need to start by screwing everything up :P .
NateNate 08-15-05, 01:16 PM	I completely agree with the OP, and ancalimohtar (thank you, Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V!) really had a lot of good stuff to add. I'm going to address the subject of Familiars, using the following link as an example: http://www.3rdedition.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=258 This was an ECL 10, Core-plus-Completes contest, and the winning entry was mine. As you can see from my post further down, I'm a real jerk when it comes to rules-mongering. My entry is both a Familiar and a Cohort (to advance his HD), and has ECL 10 PC gear as per contest guidelines. Even without most of the gear, he's a force to be reckoned with. Plus his master could Draconic Polymorph him into all manner of buff forms, like a Kelvezu or an Arrow Demon (yes, Hellhounds are proficient with martial weapons as per the Outsider creature type). I'm actually considering playing a Charger Gish with Improved Familiar in a future game. My point is, Familiars can be very powerful allies, especially with Obtain Familiar, Improved Familiar, and all manner of shared buffs. They can also use most gear, which is especially nice with the super-cheap Hand of the Mage, or a high Wis and a Monk's Belt. While a severe liability early on, you shouldn't brush the ability aside in the higher levels, because they *can* be really good.
DisposableHero_ 08-15-05, 01:55 PM	I'd just like to take a second to gripe that Arcane and Divine casters are spoiled rotten when it comes to full casting PrCs. Any of you folks taken a look at the psionic options for manifester prestige classes? I'll save you the trouble. Between the Mind's Eye and XPH and every setting neutral splatbook in 3.5 there exists 2 full manifester PrCs: Cerebromancer Psychic Theurge Elocator is the only XPH PrC that you can dip for no caster level loss, and you get an ability that is poorly written and not particularly powerful, and it requires dodge, mobility, and spring attack to get. Thrallherd, Constructor, Meditant, Illithid Slayer, Psion Uncarnate, Metamind, Sanctified Mind, Psychic Weapon Master, Sangehirn, Crystal Master, Iron Mind, Psychic Assassin, and Body Leech all lose a manifester level at level 1.
cvazi 08-15-05, 02:55 PM	I'd just like to take a second to gripe that Arcane and Divine casters are spoiled rotten when it comes to full casting PrCs. Any of you folks taken a look at the psionic options for manifester prestige classes? :rofl: ARGH! You just made coffee splurge out of my nose! Thanks for saying what needed to be said- but I am sending you my dry-cleaning bill. :D
elfink 08-15-05, 03:19 PM	I second the gripe about lack of full manifester level PrCs; part of the problem is that psionics just doesn't get the huge amount of coverage in new books that arcane and divine casters get. In reply to the OP: No, I don't have a problem with them taking away arcane caster levels from PrCs; what else are they going to take away? The sorc/wiz already have crap in the way of skills, crap for BaB, and two bad saves. They don't have any class abilities worthy of the name (the feats are great for a wizard, blah blah blah, you only get one every five levels which to me is in no way worth it), and one of them actually hurts you half the time (familiars, just say no). The only things that they can do to a caster class in order to keep people from leaping at actual nonspell class abilities for an arcane caster are remove levels of spellcasting or make strict requirements. The problem is, the stricter the requirements the more of a cookie-cutter style you get (IE oh, you have levels in such and such PrC, I know everything about your character because you have to build to that and only to that from level one) which gets kind of boring after awhile. That basically only leaves taking away caster levels, and as long as they only take away 1-2, I can deal with it; it slows you down a bit, but you still get your highest level of spells, and you're getting worthwhile nonspell (which are by definition a finite resource) abilities out of it. Besides, if you don't want to use non full casting PrCs, then don't. Simple as that. You still have old favorites (incantatrix, archmage, etc) that will work, and wizards will still put out some new full caster level classes for you to look at.
Pinky's brain 08-15-05, 03:35 PM	How about an exceptional spellcaster feat you can take multiple times, which gives you one extra spellcasting level in a certain casting class upto your ECL ... makes LAd races more playable too for casters. In effect dropped spellcasting levels in a PrC would give you -1 bonus feats ;)
Lord Schpungus 08-15-05, 04:36 PM	umm.... :uh-huh: :uh-huh: :uh-huh: :uh-huh: :uh-huh: You want a feat that gives you all the benefits of a wiz/sorc level? A FEAT that gives you a LEVEL? no thanks. I'll keep my crack out of my D&D, thanks.
Dr Durothil 08-15-05, 04:56 PM	I don't think that was such bad idea for a house rule. Any minmaxer worth his salt should have so many options in regards to what feats to choose, that investing one or more feats to get spellcasting levels back wouldn't be such an easy choice to make. Of course there would probably be spellcraft and/or knowledge (arcana) requirements, too.
RadicalTaoist 08-15-05, 05:32 PM	Make that a second echo from the "Welcome to tough PrC choices, suckahz!" psionic section. Although I must agree with Ancalimohtar's post, I really don't think more Uber PrCs like the Sacred Exorcist, Mage of the Arcane Order, and Initiate of the Seven Veils should be made the standard.
Axle_Steelcat 08-15-05, 05:37 PM	Generally* (disclaimer) Full Casting PRCs require multiple semi-useless Feats.
Snow Savant 08-15-05, 08:46 PM	The original crux of this thread is indeed true. When adding PrC levels to a primary spellcaster, losing even 1 spellcaster level is a cardinal sin. The only exception I personally have run across is the War Weaver PrC from HoB (although it has some circumstantial limitations to it as well). Regarding the power level of most prime spellcaster PrC's, we pretty much have a bell curve distribution throughout the entire gamut of WotC 3.X material. Most are fairly balanced and reasonable in scope. While on each end of the curve resides total utter crap ... and unbalanced "too good to be true" PrC's (Incantatrix, Shadowcraft Mage, etc.). I'm still amazed that this forum doesn't focus-in on some of the more esoteric prime spellcaster PrC's out there that really should get more spotlight attention due to their ease of access and sublime power. PrC's such as Ruathar, Earth Dreamer, Sea Witch (first 3 levels), etc. People tend to focus on the current sexy PrC's like IotSV, MotAO, Geometer ... and yet the amount of permutations to create truely outrageously powerful Wizards number into the hundreds. In addition, nobody should forget the combinatorial buildcraft value of old standbys like the Harper Mage or Loremaster. *** Thankfully, WotC is moving away from thinking that publishing prime spellcaster PrC's with staggered spellcaster progression will gain a foothold of popularity with the spellslinging crowd. They now seem to be publishing a majority of PrC's with 10/10 or 9/10 progression (the latter with the 1st level being empty). That's better than it was. But for even a 9/10 PrC, you better wow the hell out of me with something like the War Weaver unless you wish for me to turn the page onto the next PrC. Last ... when it comes to PrC design, if WotC wants people to avoid cherry-picking frontloaded PrC's ... they should really provide an *amazing* capstone ability at the final level of the PrC. You know, as an enticement to commit to the PrC. It makes sense in real life too. Getting to the pinnacle of any life pursuit should give you some sort of synergy effect that somehow justifies your dedication and commitment.
Crosswind 08-15-05, 08:57 PM	Apologies for the hasty reply, FireEyes. I was out of line. What I'm trying to convey is the following: In a perfectly balanced game (...which doesn't exist), wizards who PRC and wizards who don't PRC should be equally powerful. The prior would have PRC abilities, but would have had to take sub-optimal feats and skills in order to qualify. The latter would have no PRC abilities, but would have been able to take optimal feats. As it stands, however, the abilities granted by PRCs far, far, far outweigh the sub-optimal feats and skills required to qualify for them, and that is the crux of the imbalance. Denying those PRCs some caster level -is- a way to restore a bit of balance. -Cross
FireEyes 08-15-05, 09:07 PM	Apologies for the hasty reply, FireEyes. I was out of line. What I'm trying to convey is the following: In a perfectly balanced game (...which doesn't exist), wizards who PRC and wizards who don't PRC should be equally powerful. The prior would have PRC abilities, but would have had to take sub-optimal feats and skills in order to qualify. The latter would have no PRC abilities, but would have been able to take optimal feats. As it stands, however, the abilities granted by PRCs far, far, far outweigh the sub-optimal feats and skills required to qualify for them, and that is the crux of the imbalance. Denying those PRCs some caster level -is- a way to restore a bit of balance. -Cross It happens ^^; Just remember that for a caster sucking at the low-to-mid levels doesnt always pay off in the high levels. Generally, I think, a PrC should be more powerful than an non prc class by about half way through. But generally, the non-prc character should be better before that. They didnt have to blow a feat on something useless. Seriously, how great is Iron Will for a Wizard? He's a Good Will save class, and is gonna multi into a good will save class. Incantrix should have -1CL at level 10, or level 1, in my opinion. Possibly take away the 1st level bonus feat to.
Pinky's brain 08-15-05, 09:23 PM	You want a feat that gives you all the benefits of a wiz/sorc level?No BAB, no HD, no saves, no nothing except for spellcasting obviously. It would make some broken PrCs such as Master Transmogrofist playable, it would make having a LAd race as a caster playable ... and it wouldnt make the full casters anymore powerfull. Only problem is that it would make the dual casters more powerfull :/
Tempest Stormwind 08-15-05, 10:05 PM	Last ... when it comes to PrC design, if WotC wants people to avoid cherry-picking frontloaded PrC's ... they should really provide an *amazing* capstone ability at the final level of the PrC. You know, as an enticement to commit to the PrC. It makes sense in real life too. Getting to the pinnacle of any life pursuit should give you some sort of synergy effect that somehow justifies your dedication and commitment. Normally, I agree with your opinions, Snow, but here, I take offense to this. You're saying losing a spellcasting level to gain gobsmacking abilities at a loss of NOTHING else (i.e. wizards/sorcerors already have the worst base attack, skill points, and saves (except Will) in the game, plus relatively minor class features) is only worth it if they gain an even MORE gobsmacking ability at 10th level? I'm with DisposableHero and RadicalTaoist here, even though my name has a space in between the two words (;)). Psionics has it right. Casters are spoiled rotten. To me, the only PrCs worth full progression are close enough to d20 Modern advanced classes anyway -- Archmage, for instance. The ones that are specialized should lose a level. Mind you, they should gain a good ability for that loss -- Thrallherd, Advanced Construction, Bonded Weapon and the various bonuses of the Illithid Slayer (not so much their first-level abilities as the first level hit points, skill points, base attack and proficiencies -- I don't like the Slayer's prerequisites, but the design of the class is solid) come to mind. An example of what NOT to do: Gobsmacking abilities, caster level, level 1. Case in point: Spellsword and Mindbender. These classes effectively do not exist past level 1. In 3.0, the Spellsword lost its first caster level at level 1, gaining them at even levels. People STILL dipped it. Why would it need to be stronger? (IMC, these PrCs exist, but their progression is reversed: +1 on even, not +1 on odd.)
beaver1024 08-15-05, 10:16 PM	The problem is that the base system is completely flawed. This flaw affects all other extensions to the base system including arcane caster PrCs. The 3.5 designers nerfed arcane casters to such an extent that they have nothing good about their classes apart from their spellcasting. Even in spellcasting they are tethering on the edge of complete crapness that anything that affects their spellcasting will tip them over. This is why the power of the wizard is so variable from campaign to campaign and the sorcerer is pretty much unplayable. Consequently any PrC that offers full casting progression will be overpowered as they offer abilities much better than the crappy base wiz/sorc classes. As such they would be a no brainer to take. Take for example a hypothetical PrC that only needs arcane caster 5th as a prerequsite and all it gives, along with full caster progression, is a altered class skill list. These include Bluff, Diplomancy, Use Magic Device and Gather Information. Would this be a no brainer for a sorcerer? Absolutely! Would a wizard take this? Maybe but it would not be an absolute no either because it alleviates the idiotic familiar problem. Add to this the idiotic assumption made by the desingers that only the top level spells for a wiz/sorc matter you have a situation where any loss of spellcasting power whatsoever basically cripples the spellcaster. So the PrC desingers are faced with these constraints, any minor benefit the PrC provides will be overpowered because it will be so much more better than what wiz/sorcs get as a base class it would be a no brainer. However the only thing they can really do to drop the power level of the PrC to the crap level of the base classes is to take off caster levels. They can't do much else because the base sorc/wiz classes have the worst of everything else. However as the spellcasting is the only thing that the class can do, taking off caster levels makes the PrC useless. There will never be a solution to this problem unless the base classes are fixed. If they provide an ability has the same value as caster level removed it would be overpowered. That ability have to compensate for bad BAB, bad HPs, bad weapon selection, bad skill selection etc etc. If they retain full caster progression and just give minor abilities, it would be overpowered. If they remove caster levels with only minor abilites it would be useless.
Snow Savant 08-15-05, 10:16 PM	I have no idea what the hell "gobsmacking" means, but when I say *amazing*, that means granting a class ability that compels a potential taker to stay the course and avoid the early departure syndrome. It doesn't mean overpowered or broken, and you should know better than to assume that I would mean that. Mechanics balance in spellcaster PrC design is extremely important, especially since prime spellcasters already outclass martial types by a considerable margin. As it is, there are way too many PrC's that are frontloaded and no-brainer candidates for early departure. I would like to see more PrC's (spellcaster and non-spellcaster) that ramp-up in quality/quantity of class abilities. Such a design mechanic would make it less tempting for people to want to leave PrC's for other frontloaded PrC's.
DisposableHero_ 08-15-05, 10:38 PM	They now seem to be publishing a majority of PrC's with 10/10 or 9/10 progression (the latter with the 1st level being empty). That's better than it was. I think if you track it back, you'll find this stopped being the case around February 2005. The norm since seems to be 9/10 (missing 1st level), 4/5 (missing first level) and 8/10 (missing first and last). Races of Stone and Races of the Wild as far as I can tell (and I haven't looked very deep into setting specific material) were the last splatbooks to contain a bevy of full caster prestige classes. This trend is hard to detect at a glance however, as it coincides with the shift to the new PrC format, which significantly reduced the volume of new PrCs in the recent books. I haven't extensively researched this but I can point you to the following books, in which you will not find any full caster prestige classes that are not dual caster hybrids: Eberron Campaign Setting (June 2004) Sharn: City of Towers (Dec 2004) Complete Adventurer (Jan 2005) Races of Eberron (April 2005) Lords of Madness (April 2005) [Lords of Madness is blessed with 1 full caster] Heroes of Battle (May 2005) Five Nations (July 2005) Weapons of Legacy (July 2005) Explorer's Handbook (August 2005) Stormwrack (August 2005) To total up the score: Full Manifesters = 0 Full Casters in Eberron Books = 0 Full Casters in setting neutral books since April = 1 (unless I missed a book with some in it) Like it or not losing a caster level at level 1 is pretty much standard at the moment. But for even a 9/10 PrC, you better wow the hell out of me with something like the War Weaver unless you wish for me to turn the page onto the next PrC. To reiterate: Arcane and Divine casters are spoiled rotten with their PrCs, and I'm glad to see the tides turning. Psion 20 is a solid build, it is legitimately on par with any prestige based build out there, no questions. Can you say the same about Wizard 20? Real optimizing comes when there are real decisions to be made, not when you step into no brainers like incantatrix.
LefferDP 08-15-05, 11:01 PM	A bit off topic, but still this seems an ideal place to ask... Has anyone seen any attempts to make the Wiz/Sorc 20 more playable? Does anyone have any suggestions?
Eidolon Faer 08-15-05, 11:06 PM	Okay... First of all, hate to say it, but Psionics was a poorly-thought-out mess that was haphazardly tacked onto 1st Edition AD&D. Then they redid it for 2nd Edition...and it came out as a poorly-thought-out mess. Things didn't really change all that much for 3.X, did they? I'm sorry you folks who love the Psionics Rules to bits are disappointed but Psionics have been a running joke in AD&D since 1980. What, exactly, did you expect? Of course, is WOTC is going to do something at all, they should at least try and have it not come off as lame. Maybe you do have a beef. Which is why I have to wonder who's selling crack to their game designers. Snowfox is absolutely correct that most PrC's aimed at pure arcane casters will be utterly ignored by players if they don't offer reasonable payoffs. What the hell were they smoking when they made the Greenstar Adept, for example? Or the Acolyte of the Skin? Or (dear lord) the Master Transmogrifist? Even the Daggerspell Mage is ONLY a forgivable class for a Gish, since no pure finger-waver is going to draw a knife except at mealtimes after level 3. In fact, that's part of the problem. There is no incentive to play a Wizard when there are so many effective Gish builds out there that lose only a few caster levels over a career. And any PrC that is remotely acceptable for a pure caster is going to be tempting indeed as a dip for a Gish unless it's something hyper-specialized like an Archmage.
Tempest Stormwind 08-15-05, 11:15 PM	A bit off topic, but still this seems an ideal place to ask... Has anyone seen any attempts to make the Wiz/Sorc 20 more playable? Does anyone have any suggestions? The Ultimate Class Series, the Composite Sorceror Fix, and RadicalTaoist's interesting take on wizards (and only wizards, although presumably it applies to any arcane caster that follows the wizard's rules as opposed to the bard's). I can't provide links right now (my connection's on the fritz, and I need to tackle router settings) but those are the ones that come to my head. I know there are others as well. To some, by the way, the Battle Sorceror (UA) and, perhaps, even the Warlock were attempts to redo the sorceror into something playable.
DisposableHero_ 08-15-05, 11:17 PM	Okay... First of all, hate to say it, but Psionics was a poorly-thought-out mess that was haphazardly tacked onto 1st Edition AD&D. Then they redid it for 2nd Edition...and it came out as a poorly-thought-out mess. Things didn't really change all that much for 3.X, did they? I'm sorry you folks who love the Psionics Rules to bits are disappointed but Psionics have been a running joke in AD&D since 1980. What, exactly, did you expect? Have you tried 3.5 psionics (3.0 was pretty bad, and I'll admit to zero experience with the older systems), in the SRD and its a solid system if you give it a chance. As I said, the trend is pulling casters towards manifesters in terms of PrC design and caster level loss, like it or not, +1 caster level at level 1 is hard to come by, and I'm fairly certain that its a shift in the thinking of the people writing the books and not some freak coincidence.
Snow Savant 08-15-05, 11:18 PM	To reiterate: Arcane and Divine casters are spoiled rotten with their PrCs, and I'm glad to see the tides turning. Psion 20 is a solid build, it is legitimately on par with any prestige based build out there, no questions. Can you say the same about Wizard 20? But until all the tides have turned, we still have that bell curve distribution of spellcaster PrC's. Meaning that Char-Oppers will always gravitate to the glory side of the bell and laugh at the chaff in the middle and the other end. That's an unhealthy environment. Which leads me to an even bigger issue - the chaotic and non-coordinated design structures of D&D 3.5 game mechanics. And it's only getting worse with game designers now being split into Eberron, FRCS, and Greyhawk (or generic world) camps at WotC HQ. We need more mechanical consistency in the game ... but, that's fodder for another thread. But to answer your question, Wizard-20 is still immensely viable as an optimized power build. Take your wizardly bonus feats as Extend Spell, CWI, Quicken Spell, and Craft Staff (or Craft Contingency). You'll still kick some royal ass. You still have an additional broken game mechanic in your almighty Familiar. Which contrary to some posters who stated earlier, is a highly abuseable asset even though you never plan on letting it see the light of combat due to its usual fragility. I've seen Incantatrix power-builds that died early and stupid deaths to players who had no clue how to use arcane magic the right way. In contrast, I've seen Wiz-20 simple wizard builds totally dominate the opposition, game balance, and flow of the campaign. It's way more dependent on feat selection, spell selection, spell tactics, and downtime management (for creating items and for Fabricate/Creation Wizards). So "ultimate power" does come to all varieties of Wizard builds ... but only to players who have a predilection and canny understanding for how to best play them.
Eidolon Faer 08-15-05, 11:24 PM	Making Wiz 20 or Sorc 20 more playable: 1) Arcana Unearthed's Magister class. 2) Loads of house rules. For example IMC I tweak familiars a bit and give Sorcerers a 4 + Int skill progression and the choice of 2 skills as class skills appropriate to the character background and subject to DM approval. Since Sorcery doesn't require the time intensive study that Wizards need, they have more time to pick stuff up as kids. I also give them a free feat at level one chosen from a list. I still figure both Wizards and Sorcerers will take Prestige Classes at level 5-6, but I'm not as worried about that. I kinda like it for flavor reasons. 3) Minor nerfs to the "C o D". Specifically, I am fairly draconian about enforcing adherence to the deity's agenda in the case of Clerics. To the point where a Cleric 20 would be certifiably insane by any reasonable standard. Paladins get off easy. Druids have a world-spanning heirarchy to deal with, and their own little set of roleplaying challenges. Druidic politics is something to be avoided like the plague, regardless of what Archdruid you fall under. It's just the symptoms that differ. It's rather like a choice between the Black Death, AIDS, or Rabies. And if the campaign goes a long time, and you're very, VERY unlucky, you might end up as an Archdruid yourself.
20goingon1232 08-15-05, 11:25 PM	A bit off topic, but still this seems an ideal place to ask... Has anyone seen any attempts to make the Wiz/Sorc 20 more playable? Does anyone have any suggestions? Yes. Done that. Familiars don't cost XP when they die. They take 24hrs and 100gp to get back. They also get Dex bonus as per Druid table, and everyone gets the Improved Familiar feat for free (they only have to meet the minimum caster requirements). Players get to choose which effect they get from the normal Familiar granted ability table. Familiars also get feat and stat progression as per normal HD advancement (which is EQUAL to yours). Suffer ASF in iron (which includes steel)/copper (which includes including bronze and brass) armours. Leather, Silver, Mithril, Adamantite and other materials do not attract ASF. Iron/copper shields attract ASF, others do not. You still do not start with Armour Prof, though, and you still need a hand free. ASF has been changed from "restriction to movement of armour/shields" to "iron/copper interfering with your ability to draw on the Weave reliably". Sorceror spontaneous casting has been changed to allow metamagic as normal casting (ie., no longer full round, but still take up a higher slot). Quicken Spell is still barred for the Sorc for now. I might change this later, depending on how well the Sorc fairs. They also get a bonus feat every 4 levels, starting at level 4, that they can use on Expanded Knowledge (exactly the same as the Psionic version except it applies to the Sorc spell list, of course), metamagic, craft item or general magic feats (eg., Spell Penetration and Spell Focus).
DisposableHero_ 08-15-05, 11:39 PM	But to answer your question, Wizard-20 is still immensely viable as an optimized power build. I'm going to rephrase that question, because while you are absolutely right about the power and optimization potential of a 20th level wizard, that was not the point I was trying to get at. Given crack optimizers all around (since we have that luxury on this board) do you think the options afforded to single class wizards (or sorcerers, who have even less draw to stay in the class) allow them to compete with builds that take full optimized advantage of the available full caster prestige classes? I don't personally, because while I understand that familiars are valuable and powerful, and that the bonus feats a wizard gets are nothing to scoff at, I believe that there are simply too many powerful options available, and too many powerful combinations out there for straight wizards to be on the same level in optimized cases. On the other hand with psionics, the concern of balancing manifester level loss against the abilities gained through the PrC is a much harder decision, and I would frequently take pure psion and manifesting over the prestige classes available. This obviously isn't a perfect comparison, because the psion's bonus feats are less limited, spell casting and power manifesting don't translate directly, and the prestige options just aren't the same, even if you don't count the full caster PrCs. I think both options are wrong, with the psionic PrCs being too weak and the full casters being too strong (not in all cases on either side by in general)
Snow Savant 08-15-05, 11:52 PM	Given crack optimizers all around (since we have that luxury on this board) do you think the options afforded to single class wizards (or sorcerers, who have even less draw to stay in the class) allow them to compete with builds that take full optimized advantage of the available full caster prestige classes? I don't personally, because while I understand that familiars are valuable and powerful, and that the bonus feats a wizard gets are nothing to scoff at, I believe that there are simply too many powerful options available, and too many powerful combinations out there for straight wizards to be on the same level in optimized cases.In light of the vast amount of material we have in 3.X, clearly a Wiz-20 is not the preferred path you would want to take. If you have any inkling of optimization or niche specialization in your buildcraft m.o., you want a PrC or a series of PrC's. And unlike a number of DM's out there, I highly advocate to people that heavily multi-classed builds are preferred to take advantage of the current game's PrC offerings. A lot of us in real life are dilettantes or frequent scene-jumpers anyway - there is no reason why wizard's in D&D should not be the same. Nonetheless, there are still a considerable number of people out there who play core-rules-only, which makes a Wiz-20, Wiz-10/Loremaster-10, or either with an Archmage permutation their only viable options (since Arcane Trickster sucks). Regarding Sorcerors ... well, WotC blew it big time on this one. A Sorc-20 is still powerful because of the way spells rule the game. But compared to their other primary spellcaster peers, they are just so far behind the power curve it's not even funny. It's amazing how many countless threads have been created over in the Classes Forum over the years to try and "fix" the Sorceror problem. Comparatively, this has never, to my knowledge, been done with the Wizard core class.
elfink 08-16-05, 12:19 AM	Two things: Firstly, I'm perfectly willing to retract my statement on familiars, since that was only IME; most of my experience actually playing arcane casters has come in LG, so I'm not actually sure what all can be done with a familiar; I tend to not bother. Second:beaver1024, are we playing the same game? While it's true that the base sor/wiz has nothing to recomend it other than its spellcasting, it's not really like they need it if played correctly. I certainly wouldn't say that they're spellcasting is tethering (teetering?) on the edge of complete crapiness; spells rule the game at high levels, pure and simple. Whether a lvl20 arcane will whip a lvl20 divine I don't know, and is probably a topic for another thread, but a caster will tend to beat the tar out of a noncaster (yes, there can be exceptions under rare circumstances). If you mean that they are not awesome at low levels, I can sort of see where you're coming from; that's when the melee'ers tend to shine more. Even so, I would argue that a well played sor/wiz is perfectly able to keep up with the party, and later on surpass it, at levels 2-20. I exclude level one because it's just too easy to drop to a stray arrow at level one. I actually have a history of prefering sor to wiz, but this is because as I said most of my playing of spellcasters has occured in LG, where the wiz doesnt generally get enough time to actually USE their divinations/superior spell selection, and can't really tailor their spells selected to an encounter; the boxed text throws you along too fast. Cheers
The Rizz 08-16-05, 03:32 AM	when it comes to PrC design, if WotC wants people to avoid cherry-picking frontloaded PrC's ... they should really provide an *amazing* capstone ability at the final level of the PrC. [...] As it is, there are way too many PrC's that are frontloaded and no-brainer candidates for early departure. I would like to see more PrC's (spellcaster and non-spellcaster) that ramp-up in quality/quantity of class abilities. Such a design mechanic would make it less tempting for people to want to leave PrC's for other frontloaded PrC's. I have to agree. You really need to have something good at (almost) every level to keep people's attention. If the best features of the class are at first level, people just dip. If the level 1-9 abilities are crappy, it doesn't really matter if the level 10 ability is godlike - people don't want to play through 9 levels of crap to get that ability, especially when there's dozens of viable PrCs to dip in that will probably give you a combo that works out better. Frankly, I think one of the best designed classes I've seen that shows what I mean is the war mind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/warMind.htm). Every single level (with the exception of 4th) has something that is really worth taking that next level for. It is one of the few classes I've seen that doesn't have an obvious "exit point" to it. I'm sorry you folks who love the Psionics Rules to bits are disappointed but Psionics have been a running joke in AD&D since 1980. What, exactly, did you expect? I will agree with you, somewhat, for v1-3.0 rules. I say somewhat, because psionics were the absolutely most broken class in v2 and 3.0 due to it not being worked into the magic system correctly, and having a good majority of powers open for massive abuse. (It may have been this way in v1 as well, but I never played them in v1.) The most powerful characters in any v2 or 3.0 game I've played were psions. As for 3.5, I think the XPH fixed almost everything that was broken in the 3.0 book, brought in some good new game mechanics, and overall just plain works. Psions are a good base "caster" class, with plenty of flexibility built in. Add to this the (IMHO excellent) idea of having many psi powers have meta- feats built into them, and I think it becomes one of the most fun "caster" classes to play, as you don't really need to worry about taking meta-feats to give you more flexibility with your powers. What the hell were they smoking when they made the Greenstar Adept, for example? Making a interesting flavor-class for a fighter-type who wants to become a golem? It's not the most powerful PrC for warriors, but it's not hard to get into, and does have some significant benefits for a frontline fighter. In many ways it's similar to the Dragon Disciple for that reason. No real caster would ever take it, but for fighter-types it could be useful. You still have an additional broken game mechanic in your almighty Familiar. Which contrary to some posters who stated earlier, is a highly abuseable asset even though you never plan on letting it see the light of combat due to its usual fragility. Actually, in a game I am running, one character has been using his familiar as a frontline fighter, and it has been working out quite well for him. Granted, he's spent 90% of his feats to improve the familiar, and over half his gear is on the thing. It's ended up with the best AC in the party, a decent to-hit, acid damage on every attack, etc. It doesn't dish out the damage like the fighters do, but it certainly changes the dynamics of the battlefield in a meaningful way.
Urnsk 08-16-05, 05:12 AM	Disposable asked me about this earlier tonight, and this is the first time I've read since Snow posted, and I must say I couldn't agree more. The importance of a spellcaster level is *Huge*. Play a Wizard, then play a Sorcerer, and you will understand the pain immediately. For a sorcerer to lose a caster level... it's just not acceptable under most circumstances. To suggest that a caster loses *nothing* by taking a PrC is a tad bit unfair, though. There is no multi-class option for a Wizard like there is for melee or skill monkeys. A Fighter 2/Ranger 3 is a valid choice, and opens up a ton of options; likewise a Rogue X/Skill Class X. Many (but not all) of the PrCs out there for melee types have prereqs which mechanicly help the class, and most of the notable exceptions have gobs of potential oozing off the page. A lot of the Arcane caster PrCs have really, really crappy requirements. I mean really bad, and other than spellcasting, Feats are the only thing they have going for them. No hit dice, no armor, no BAB, no skill points... They have their familiar (Which, I grant, is the least optimized benefit I tend to see wizards/sorcs use in games I'm in), and spellcasting. They do lose Familiar progression, though that really isn't an issue; its hit points progress, its hit dice progress, its saves progress, and it's already got improved evasion from the get go. When a Fighter type joins a PrC, they keep full BAB, their armor, their high hit-die, their never-runs-out-ability-to-deal-damage. They aren't completely gyped, but I do understand their point: after 11th level (arguable before that), they are overshadowed and weak compared to the spellcaster. Back on the wizard's side, while CO goes through 20 level builds, my experience has shown most campaigns end in the 8-12th level range. For 8 levels, the Arcane Caster is getting shown up by the Barbarian, Rogue, Cleric, and Fighter. They fling a spell or two, do a little battlefield control, and are impotent. They are *JUST* starting to get into their stride... and it's over. Roll up a new character, we're doing a new campaign. Putting them back even 1 more level means that they will very often not even hit that stride. Part of the problem, though, is that so many PrCs for Arcane types are bottom heavy. Halruaan Elder has some steep prereqs, but it's benefits are huge. A Loremaster with a dip in Divine Oracle and Shadow Adept has a free bonus feat and evasion. The Incantantrix is loaded for bear the whole way through. So with Halruaan Adept (1st level), Iron Will (Human Bonus), Scribe scroll (Wizard Bonus), Spell Thematics (3rd), Quicken Spell (Wizard 5th), Shadow Weave Magic (6th), and Skill Focus: Knowledge: Relglion (9th), the character is getting 8 free feats, an epic feat, evasion... at the cost of a few early level feats, not all of which are terrible. And, as Snow said, if Wizards wants their classes to be used, they have to compete with that, or variations of that. The sollution as I see it (and take as many grains of salt as you like), is a focus toward a benefit every level, with spellcasting progression at all levels but 5th and 10th, but with capstone abilities at each, with similarly useless prereqs. This lets a wizard be on par with others at that 8-10 range, but still lose a caster level. The capstones *NEED* to be worth it, or it's just not going to happen, especially at the cost of 2 caster levels. But otherwise... what's the point in NOT going into all of the front-heavy PrCs with prereqs sinergizing with Incantantrix? The main problem with this line of thinking is that, unless pre-existing PrCs get outright banned, there is no motivation NOT to use them. Therefore, the only wya to make the melee-monkeys feel included in the game is to make THEM more powerful, and we have all already seen how well WotC handles balancing things out. Their current attempt is fine for the non-CO's out there, because they don't understand that often class *ABILITIES* rather than flavor text are the expression of the character's personality. Well, that and the flavor text that we wrie for our own character. Novel thoguht, that... Now, for Clerics, I say go for it. They have acceptable BAB, full armor, 2 good saves, and full caster, with a *HUGELY* workable class benefit that really doesn't need to scale to be sick, thanks to Divine feats. New stuff may not be used (And lets face it, most Druids should never leave that class, so we'r etalking about Clerics), but a bottom-heavey ability coupled with spellcaster loss at level 1,5,10 could be worth it. Level dipping becomes pretty much the same with one class through or many for a couple.
NateNate 08-16-05, 05:32 AM	I think a reasonable solution would be skipping the first level for most or all PrCs, but then putting +2 levels of spellcasting at the 10th level. That way you'd still get 10/10 progression, but only if you max it out.
Eyeless Blond 08-16-05, 10:42 AM	Well that certainly solves the problem of forcing someone to take all 10 levels of a PrC NateNate. The bigger issue here though is that of arcane caster power inflation. Casting progression, whether arcane or divine, is such a tremendous benefit to a full caster that sacrificing even one level of it is a significant loss. Further, so many full-caster classes exist already in the Complete books and even in Core that the loss of even a single caster level is seen as quite possibly crippling to an optimized build, unless you're not going for a full caster at all. Most 'gish' builds these days end up with +16 or more BAB and in most cases fully 19 of 20 caster levels, and some builds give up as few as three caster levels to gain 9th level spells of another type! As others have so blithely put is before: caster classes are spoiled with full casting. It's so bad that many optimizers consider a casting class not worth their time unless they not only get full casting progression, but a truckload of other abilities added on; it's really rather nuts.
olothfaern 08-16-05, 12:02 PM	...I came for a variety of opinions and some solutions. To the Psionics folks, I love psionics and the very thing you mention about your PrCs is what keeps me from playing psion chrs (I'll dip for some extra/non-standard ability with more martial chrs). For the folks that have jumped on the casters are spoiled bandwagon, you obviously 'believe the hype', so I could offer any number of arguments, but since you've already decided you have made yourself unable to evaluate them outside of your pet theory's perspective. To the folks that offered other things to take away besides caster level, that's what I'm talking about. Effective caster levels, schools of magic, some sort of power cycle mechanic (think Krynnish moons). There is nothing more I can really say that hasn't already been said, but I will leave with one more analogy that I used when discussing this the other day. Asking a caster to delay his progression is like asking a base attack bonus character to do the same with his attacks, but his highest one until he hits his next iteration. So in that scenario a fighter entering a PrC @ 6th has a BAB of +6/+1 but can only use his +1 BAB until he gets to +11 at which point he would get his +6 and so forth. No meleer would put up with that, even if you didn't force him to wait the full iteration, just a few levels, it would still suck for him to have to rely on his old weak abilities while other people of his type and level use theirs and the CRs are made for people who can do so...
NineInchNall 08-16-05, 01:42 PM	Arcane caster power inflation? Is the arcane list so much better than that of CODs? That would be a better argument if clerics and druids weren't so much better than sorcerers. In nearly every category. As for spell slingers being spoiled, that seems a bit fallacious to me. It's not that casters are spoiled, it's that psionic characters are being gyped; they should have more full progression PrCs. Someone who has just enough to get by is not considered spoiled solely on the basis that there are those who are lacking.
Eyeless Blond 08-16-05, 01:54 PM	For the folks that have jumped on the casters are spoiled bandwagon, you obviously 'believe the hype', so I could offer any number of arguments, but since you've already decided you have made yourself unable to evaluate them outside of your pet theory's perspective. Oh joy, the my-opinion-is-so-superior-that-I-don't-even-need-to-respond-to-you argument. :rolleyes: I find this view particularly ironic as you just finished praising psionics, which have no full-manifester classes (other than cerebromancer and psychic theurge, which require lost manifestor levels even to enter). Very amusing. To the folks that offered other things to take away besides caster level, that's what I'm talking about. Effective caster levels, schools of magic, some sort of power cycle mechanic (think Krynnish moons). Losing schools of magic is an interesting idea, but it has the problem that it basically does nothing to sorcerers, who usually never learn all the spells they want even in three schools of magic, and cripples wizards, who need all the spells known they can get. Power cycles are a terrible mechainc, for the same reason the ranger's favored enemy is largely useless; they're completely up to the DM to enforce, and have the feel of railroading a player who's unfortunate enough to subject hinself to one. Effective caster levels, though: that's an interesting idea. Maybe one day we'll see that mechanic used someday, though it's made somewhat useless by Practised Spellcaster. There is nothing more I can really say that hasn't already been said, but I will leave with one more analogy that I used when discussing this the other day. Asking a caster to delay his progression is like asking a base attack bonus character to do the same with his attacks, but his highest one until he hits his next iteration. [...] That's not really the same thing though, or at least not quite the same level of loss. Losing a caster level not only lowers the power of every spell you cast (without taking the feat to make up for that), but also loses you a number of your highest-level spells. So essentially losing a caster level is like losing a point of BAB straight across the board(or more; total attack bonuses tend to be higher than total caster levels, so losing one point of BAB isn't as big a deal.), plus taking away the best ability from whatever weapon you happen to be using. On a completely unrelated note, is there a "Practised Manifester" feat for psions that works like practised caster? That would be a very good thing for those classes like war mind and psionic fist that have such truncated manifester progressions.
Lilt 08-16-05, 02:09 PM	As others have so blithely put is before: caster classes are spoiled with full casting. It's so bad that many optimizers consider a casting class not worth their time unless they not only get full casting progression, but a truckload of other abilities added on; it's really rather nuts.The problem is that, for a primary caster, no other abilities scale like caster progression. Saying that casters are spoiled with full casting PrCs is, I think, ignoring the fact that it is nigh impossible to create an ability that is equal in worth to a caster level progression without basing the ability almost entierly on the character's caster level progression. Character optimisation has always looked towards the future of the character. I don't know about how the other people on these boards got into character optimisation, but how many character postings do these boards get asking to help save a character they think they made a bad choice designing? I think that most people designing/progressing characters, even those haughty-taughty ones who use phrases like "I'm a role player, not a roll player", it at some point dawns on them that they want a plan for the character's future. This is probably even the same urge that sees people planning their own futures. Now the problem is that in the forwards-looking view of character optimisation, unless an ability scales as fast as (or faster than) a level of casting progression (which scales exponentially, as it has been said many times before) then a good character planner will probably skip over it. Given the above, I don't think that you can really say that casters are 'spoiled' for full casting PrCs. Practically every PrC out there which loses a caster level or more is regrettable as the character reaches later levels. The ability to do XYZ several times per day? That might be nice at 6th leel or so, but the character is probably more versatile and powerful with another 8th-9th level spell per day. That is pretty-much what a caster progression loss means to a character, and possibly makes them worse-off for around 5 levels or 3 for a powerful ability. If abilities cannot be balanced to scale with casting progression then I think it shows poor understanding of the game to drop caster levels. Yes, once you hit Epic you probably catch-up with the straight caster. The COers here are somewhat blinkard when it comes to hitting epic, however, with the only real concern towards epic play being to leave a character with 16BAB at 20HD. I am not the one to decide wether or not that is appropriate, but certainly I'll agree that I have only ever once heard of a game making the transition from pre-epic to epic which is the only type of game where both pre-epic and epic optimisations matter. It becomes an almost completely different game if you're starting much after 20th.. This is aside from any discussion about wether or not the wizard, sorcerer, or any presently available casting or manifesting PrCs are balanced. I'll say that I certainly think that manifesting PrCs should offer full progression for the same reasons that castign PrCs should. It's simply poor game design to force someone planning for the future back to the base class by offering them crap PrCs, intentionally or not, or to tempt someone with temporary gains, like through the Master of Radiance PrC, which quite possibly leave the character more powerful temporarily but ultimately may leave the character worse-off.
ancalimohtar 08-16-05, 02:32 PM	To the folks that offered other things to take away besides caster level, that's what I'm talking about.Losing schools of magic is an interesting idea, but it has the problem that it basically does nothing to sorcerers, who usually never learn all the spells they want even in three schools of magic, and cripples wizards, who need all the spells known they can get. Power cycles are a terrible mechainc, for the same reason the ranger's favored enemy is largely useless; they're completely up to the DM to enforce, and have the feel of railroading a player who's unfortunate enough to subject hinself to one. Effective caster levels, though: that's an interesting idea. Maybe one day we'll see that mechanic used someday, though it's made somewhat useless by Practised Spellcaster. Sorcerors absolutely would take a hit from losing a school, and Wizards would clearly not be unplayable--how else do people play Incantatrix? What sorceror would have no problem dropping any of the schools? Evocation: Forcecage, Contingency, Bigby's X, Wall of Force Conjuration: Solid Fog, Summon Monster, tons and tons of others Transmutation: Polymorph, Timestop Abjuration: Dispel Magic, AMF, MDJ Illusion: Silent Image, (greater) Invisibility, Shadow Conj/Evoc/Shades Enchantment: Charm/Dominate Person/Monster, Confusion Necromancy: Animate Dead, Control Undead, Ray of Enfeeblement, Horrid Wilting And that's just from the PHB. In any case, that's just ONE type of penalty PrCs could give to casters. What about my other suggestions? I particularly like the no-polymorph restriction; it could fit a prestige class whose flavor describes a character very much the opposite of the MOMF.
Eyeless Blond 08-16-05, 02:39 PM	Arcane caster power inflation? Is the arcane list so much better than that of CODs? That would be a better argument if clerics and druids weren't so much better than sorcerers. In nearly every category. Well what I meant is that CoDs have something they can (and usually do) give up in order to get their PrC abilities. Usually this amounts to their BAB, HD and one of their saves. As for spell slingers being spoiled, that seems a bit fallacious to me. It's not that casters are spoiled, it's that psionic characters are being gyped; they should have more full progression PrCs. Someone who has just enough to get by is not considered spoiled solely on the basis that there are those who are lacking. Heh, I've never heard anyone imply that a high-level psion is *gimped* before. Or, for that matter, that the core wizard is weak enough at high levels to necessitate adding on prestige classes that are trivially more powerful than the base wizard. That seems a strang perspective to me; do others agree with NineInchNail?
elfink 08-16-05, 03:05 PM	Sorcerors absolutely would take a hit from losing a school, and Wizards would clearly not be unplayable--how else do people play Incantatrix? What sorceror would have no problem dropping any of the schools? Well, I for one would have no problem dropping evocation-I play a shadowcraft mage :D You're right though in that in most cases people want acess to all the schools of magic. Here's a thought (although it may be a little bit on the drastic side): Have PrCs that give full spellcasting progression for spells per day/spells known, but do not count towards your caster level (at all) for variable numeric effects (duration, damage dice, etc); and then you get class abilities, which might (in the case of a warmage/nuker type PrC, for example) give back effective caster level for dice of damage or something. This way you would keep up your versatility, but still have to give something up for the abilities you are gaining.
DisposableHero_ 08-16-05, 03:18 PM	Heh, I've never heard anyone imply that a high-level psion is *gimped* before. Or, for that matter, that the core wizard is weak enough at high levels to necessitate adding on prestige classes that are trivially more powerful than the base wizard. That seems a strang perspective to me; do others agree with NineInchNail? You might notice that gimped was not the term he used. The term he used was gyped, which, while an inherently racist term, did not mean to say that high level psions were weak, but merely that they get a poor deal when it comes to prestige class selection compared to the options provided to arcane and divine casters. Similarly, a stright wizard 20 is not weak, he's merely not as strong as he could be. I personally feel the recent lack of full caster prestige classes shows that the arcane and divine casters were indeed spoiled with full caster prestige classes, which are a definite cut above the power level of that classes being produced now. On a completely unrelated note, is there a "Practised Manifester" feat for psions that works like practised caster? That would be a very good thing for those classes like war mind and psionic fist that have such truncated manifester progressions. No official practiced manifester exists, though carnivore created one on the psi boards. It has been repeatedly debated on that board if it is safe balance wise to do that or not, and where one places the little hiccups in the system translation. It has also been heavily debated with no clear conclusion as to weather +1 manifester level is more or less powerful than +1 caster level. The qestions with practiced manifester are more numerous than they would be with practiced spellcaster. For example, the formula for bonus power points is based on manifester level, so if you made the feat would you allow the psion to gain bonus PP from it or not. The trouble is that power level means a lot less because of augmentation than spell level does for a wizard. A level 1 spell at caster level 10 and a level 5 spell at caster level 10 are vastly different entities. However, the effect of a level 1 power augmented to 10 points against a level 5 power augmented to 10 points is not so drastic. The loss of power points hurts more than a casters loss of spell slots but the loss of powers known hurts less than the delay of the next spell level, and so the debate has raged with no one clearly putting forth a case for which is stronger, +1 caster level, or +1 manifester level.
amalcon 08-16-05, 03:44 PM	Sorcerors absolutely would take a hit from losing a school, and Wizards would clearly not be unplayable--how else do people play Incantatrix? What sorceror would have no problem dropping any of the schools? Schools to a sorcerer just provide additional options. I liken this to: What fighter would give up the ability to take the Power Attack tree? Well, a TWFer or S&Ber for one. A sorcerer's limited spell selection is easy to fill up with a limited selection of spells; even limited two or three of the eight schools, you'll still never get all the spells you want. It's not a null drawback, but it's probably worth...say, a bonus feat. For a wizard, I'd contend that it's actually a crippling ability for some schools, and unimportant for others, depending on the character, campaign, and play style (i.e. necromancy for an exalted character only costs a few spells). This just makes it like another requirement: it encourages you to play a certain type of character. If you want to debate the "requirements are a good way to balance a PrC" thing, that's different, but it isn't a true drawback. In any case, that's just ONE type of penalty PrCs could give to casters. What about my other suggestions? I particularly like the no-polymorph restriction; it could fit a prestige class whose flavor describes a character very much the opposite of the MOMF. Scratching off a total of...what, 5 core spells? Good spells, granted, but they truly make up a tiny fraction of the mage's power. It might be worth something like a bonus feat, only since they're such good spells, but no more.
NineInchNall 08-16-05, 04:45 PM	Schools to a sorcerer just provide additional options. I liken this to: What fighter would give up the ability to take the Power Attack tree? Well, a TWFer or S&Ber for one. A sorcerer's limited spell selection is easy to fill up with a limited selection of spells; even limited two or three of the eight schools, you'll still never get all the spells you want. It's not a null drawback, but it's probably worth...say, a bonus feat. I'd say that this is something of a false analogy. Feat trees require dedicated investment - they require specialization. The various schools of magic are different, however, as any 12th level sorcerer can learn contingency, regardless of whether he's taken any evocations before. As you say, you'll never learn all the spells you want, but you'll get the important ones, the oh-my-god-this-spell-saved-my-ass kind of spell. Not taking contingency is probably stupid, as is not taking shapechange, some charm spell, dispel magic, a couple save or dies, etc. The valuable spells are spread out among the schools, and done so in a way that makes casters extremely reluctant to give any up.
elfink 08-16-05, 05:05 PM	If giving up schools of magic is such a bad career move, then why do any wizards at all specialize? If you don't ever want to do any blasting, then giving up evocation is easy (you get contingency back with shadow evocation which, IMO, is rather stupid but legal). The benefits provided to a wizard by specializing are generally going to be outclassed by the abilities gained by a PrC, especially one that an optimizer is going to be looking at. Sorcerors may just have a character concept in mind of the crazy old guy who always knows everything (specialized in divinations) but doesn't use spellbooks (sorcerer). This would be voluntarily taking the drawback of specializing (in effect; if most of your spells known are taken up by divinations, it's going to be hard to get all of the rest in there) without the benefit; giving up a school of magic that they weren't planning to use anyway wouldn't really be a major cost for them.
NineInchNall 08-16-05, 07:50 PM	Wizards do it because they have no limit on spells known. Therefore they can kind of make up for lacking something from the forbidden school by learning a bunch from several others. Not to mention the whole extra spell per day per spell level thing. Sorcerers, well, don't know that many spells. When you can only choose a few spells from each spell level, you want the best of the bunch. Oftentimes the best at each spell level are from different schools.
ancalimohtar 08-16-05, 07:54 PM	I don't understand this theory that wizards are gimped by banned schools more than sorcerors. If anything, it should be the other way around. Sorcerors' power comes from two places: First, from their ability to cast any spell in their repertoire any time they've got slots left, and second, from their increased number of slots. That's it. If you take away an entire school of magic, the few spells you get will be even more limited. The best spells are spread among the schools--that's pure game balance talking. Not taking contingency is probably stupid, as is not taking shapechange, some charm spell, dispel magic, a couple save or dies, etc. The valuable spells are spread out among the schools, and done so in a way that makes casters extremely reluctant to give any up.Exactly. Scratching off a total of...what, 5 core spells? Good spells, granted, but they truly make up a tiny fraction of the mage's power. It might be worth something like a bonus feat, only since they're such good spells, but no more.First off, let's review these spells, and see how many of them make it onto "the DEFINITIVE sorceror spell list 3.5" thread. Not that it is, in fact, objectively the definitive spell list for a sorc, but it should give us an idea of what spells a wiz/sorc really values. Alter self appears on the list for every single type of sorceror; in fact, it's the first 2nd level spell to be learned for all but the battlefield controller. PAO appears on every list except the blaster's. And shapechange is the first 9th level spell to be learned for every single sorceror archetype. A case could be, and was, made for polymorph to be on some of those lists throughout the 200+ replies on that thread. If the campaign were to see significant play at high levels, I'd be leery of any prestige class that bans me from casting shapechange. As crippling as -1 CPL? No, but certainly makes you weigh the consequences. And that's exactly what a restriction meant to balance a PrC is supposed to do.