Weakest. PrCs. EVAR.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

That would be a tall order. Not saying you aren't capable, just saying that it would be very difficult.

[RandomCasualty]

1087216405[/unixtime]]But consider the possibility of leaving at level 6. When you take level 7 as Fighter, you don't get shit, and then at level 8, you'll get two levels worth of abilities. But if you take a PrC, you'll get one level worth of abilities at level seven, and then another at level 8, for a total of two. You'll be either one whole level ahead or even from now until forever, right? So why the hell would you stay in Fighter?

Because you get rid of most of the PrCs that aren't world based, so you're just left with fighter and a bunch of feats. You don't choose between taking canny defense/precise strike feat or taking a level of duelist, you just have the feat to choose from, and the duelist doesn't exist anymore.

If it's a PrC ability, then you can't get it via a feat, but there are very few PrCs. Anything generic, like weapon master, tempest, duelist, cavalier, berserker. Those are all feat trees.

[Username17]

That doesn't stop the character who left after an odd level from being strictly and completely inferior to the character who left after an even level, however.

Empty levels are not defensible. Period.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1087408671[/unixtime]]That doesn't stop the character who left after an odd level from being strictly and completely inferior to the character who left after an even level, however.

This doesn't bother me that much. There are always going to be levels that it's better to get out of a class, and so long as it's an even/odd progression, there's no real problem with that, because you know PCs won't get out of the class at a bad level anyway.

So it's really no big deal.

[Username17]

Why even have a level based progression with 20 levels if you are going to ensure that only half the available builds are viable?

Why not just have 10 levels?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1087419819[/unixtime]]Why even have a level based progression with 20 levels if you are going to ensure that only half the available builds are viable?

Why not just have 10 levels?

-Username17

Well, because part of it is trying to make the game a bit more manageable. It's easier to deal with having 10 feats than it is having 20, both for building NPCs and for trying to figure out all the abilities of a monster.

Everything is well and good for PCs, because they only have to make a single character and that's it. But for the DM, keeping things somewhat simple is a definite plus. Because when you're making high level NPCs, the difference between choosing 20 feats per NPC or 10 feats adds up fast.

IMO the disadvantage of empty levels is easily outweighed by the additional bookkeeping of having 20 separate feats as opposed to 10.

[Username17]

Well, because part of it is trying to make the game a bit more manageable. It's easier to deal with having 10 feats than it is having 20, both for building NPCs and for trying to figure out all the abilities of a monster.

That's retarded. If you honestly have this problem, just play at a lower level. It's that simple.

Don't make things mechanically less balanced because you want to deal with less discrete things - just play at a lower level where by definition there are less things to worry about. If you find that a balanced solution involves twice as many things as you are intellectually apable of understanding at 20th level - play at 10th. If it's four times as much as your brain is capable of understanding - play at 5th.

Do not make the game less balanced because you are too stupid to keep track of a balanced number of abilities at 20th level and are neurotically attached to having a large number associated with the power level of the game you are playing.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Players naturally gain levels. That's the way the game works. Even if you start low, you can end high, unless you want to be a dick and force the PCs to start over after level 5 or something.

The thing is that the game has to remain manageable at high levels for the DM too. Having 10 abilities spread over 20 levels is easier to keep track of than 20 abilities spread over 20 levels. If the 10 abilities are double power then they are equal to the 20 abilities, so on average your characters are equal, but you've cut the bookkeeping in half. That IMO is worth it.

The only time uneven progressions are significant is if the class is frontloaded. If you pay one empty level, then get a feat every even level, that's perfectly fine. It means the progression is a bit less steady than it could be, but IMO the bookkeeping advantage is worth it.

One of the biggest flaws of 3E at higher levels is that it's a great deal of bookkeeping. Calculating all the bonus types and such for monsters gets really tough later on, especially when you start factoring in buff spells, feats, etc.

When you're designing a system, you've always got to consider how easy it is to use, and if you really need that extra work. Because a DM is going to be using this system a lot to generate things, and if it's a bitch to use, then the system is effectively useless, because a DM won't really be using it and will just be making stuff up on the fly because he doesn't want to deal with it.

I don't really see what you're giving up by cutting it from 20 feats to 10, aside from creating a few minor fluctuations with the empty levels. So long as you can't skip an empty level to get to a level with goodies, there's no problem.

[Oberoni]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to have various feat chains laid out in the DMG for easy access? A "swordsman" chain, a "tank" chain, a "agile fighter" chain, "archer" chain, etc.

I mean, making a class suck just to reduce bookkeeping seems to be such a spectacular waste.

[RandomCasualty]

1087434886[/unixtime]]
I mean, making a class suck just to reduce bookkeeping seems to be such a spectacular waste.

Well, it wouldn't really make them suck. EIther you have 20 feats, 1 per level or you have 10 feats, 1 per 2 levels, where each feat gives you twice the benefit. Neither of these two are weaker than the other on average. Really it's just the fact that you're having empty levels.

So your character sheet would be simpler, but power wise it's going to be the same. Yes, there's a much bigger power jump between fighter level 5 and 6 than 4 and 5, but I don't really consider that all that big a deal, beacuse under both systems a fighter 6 is going to be equal to another fighter 6, and at most, the difference is a single feat ability.

Another plus to having only 10 feats, is that you're less likely to run out of useful feats for a given combat style.

[Username17]

Another plus to having only 10 feats, is that you're less likely to run out of useful feats for a given combat style.

That's retarded. First, there's nothing stopping you from stopping after 10th level, and second, there are literally thousands of feats. There are multiple books which individually have a thousand feats in them. There is no way you could ever run out of feats you wanted even if you were playing into Epic and got 10 feats a level.

If you want people to be able to go to higher levels with a reasonable number of feats, just convert more feats to whatever power level you happen to be using. There are thousands and thousands of feats, however many you need to convert to an appropriate power level and play with can simply be done in an afternoon. It's not a problem, all the conceptual work has been done that could need to be done to make trillions of unique fighters and prestige classes.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1090597209[/unixtime]]
That's retarded. First, there's nothing stopping you from stopping after 10th level, and second, there are literally thousands of feats. There are multiple books which individually have a thousand feats in them. There is no way you could ever run out of feats you wanted even if you were playing into Epic and got 10 feats a level.

Thousands of feats? Yeah... maybe if you count all the non-core crap. Lots are metamagic or spell/skill related, meaning the fighter doesn't want them, then they're divided into different combat styles, further cutting that number by 3. Then about 95% of them suck.

And it won't just take merely an afternoon to balance all those feats, and you'll still be at a loss to choose some. Since the intention is to rebalance most/all of the feats, we pretty much have to limit the feats to a certain set, otherwise we have no real balance for anything.

[Username17]

Since the intention is to rebalance most/all of the feats, we pretty much have to limit the feats to a certain set, otherwise we have no real balance for anything.

And it's a problem if the set happens to have two hundred constituents? I'm honestly puzzled by this claim. If it can be balanced with 20, it can be balanced with 200, or 2000,000.

The only problem then, is wading your way through the list. If the list is merely as large as the basic Wizard spell list, then you can give out 2 picks off the list every single level for the whole trek up to 20th and still have every Fighter have stuff they want and be unique - and that's a set of about 200. And people wade through that list all the time.

Making and using a set of 200 feats is child's play.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1090641835[/unixtime]]
Making and using a set of 200 feats is child's play.

Hmm... I wonder where that places the game designers then, considering they have enough trouble just balancing the feats in the PHB.

[Username17]

1090649434[/unixtime]]
Hmm... I wonder where that places the game designers then, considering they have enough trouble just balancing the feats in the PHB.

It puts them in the situation where they have no design criteria by which to make feats. They are supposed to be a numerical bonus (with different designers having different ideas on how big that bonus should be), or maybe they are supposed to be a new option or set of options (again with different designers having different ideas of what that is supposed to entail).

Fundamentally, there is no amount Whirlwind Attack you can give up to be "equal" to Weapon Focus - because it's a completely separate quantity. And when the designers try to make the feat into both quantities you end up with a fetid mess that doesn't make any sense.

If you actually had a design principle which guided what the hell feats were supposed to do it wouldn't be a problem. But when there is no design principle then you just write whatever pops into your head and nothing is balanced.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1090649800[/unixtime]]
It puts them in the situation where they have no design criteria by which to make feats. They are supposed to be a numerical bonus (with different designers having different ideas on how big that bonus should be), or maybe they are supposed to be a new option or set of options (again with different designers having different ideas of what that is supposed to entail).

Fundamentally, there is no amount Whirlwind Attack you can give up to be "equal" to Weapon Focus - because it's a completely separate quantity. And when the designers try to make the feat into both quantities you end up with a fetid mess that doesn't make any sense.

I really don't agree with this point. There's no easy way to balance feats like whirlwind attack, and yet that's what we want feats to be for the most part. You really have to make judgments about them, and those judgments have to be good. It's why feat balance is so tough.

How do you weigh whirlwind versus spring attack, or dire charge versus expertise? That's damn hard. Then you have to figure out how the feats interact and if that's balanced.

Feats by their very natures are going to do lots of different stuff. Some of them apply to metamagic, and then you apply them to skills and others to combat... some are used to make items.

The only design principle you really have is trying to decide if something is a must take or a never take. You want everything to be a "sometimes take", based on some kind of game theory analysis, and that's all you've got. But in either case that's pretty damn complex.

Now if you've got a design principle better than that to cover all of those and keep them equal, I'd really like to hear it.

Feat balance is one of the hardest things in the game because they do original things, in a way they invent new rules and mechanics and its really tough to determine how they interact.

"Sacrifice attack bonus for extra damage"
"Dont' take an AoO on a disarm attempt and gain a +4 to disarm checks"
"Gain an additional number of AoOs per round, and the ability to AoO while flat footed"
"Take a -4 to AC and you can make an AoO against anyone who hits you in melee."

Where do you even start comparing them?

[User3]

Sorry for going back to original topic, but I feel the need to point out that the [counturl=43]Hierophant[/counturl] is not only horrible, it is quite possibly worse than every class excepting only the commoner.

Seriously, I don't see the point in this class at all. I'd be happy if someone could point out something I'm missing here.

[Cielingcat]

The point is that you can do... stuff. I don't know, it kind of just sucks ass. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the worst ever, since it has to compare to shit like the Dragon Disciple or Green Star Adept, but it's pretty bad.

[User3]

You do realize it has no casting progression what-so-ever right?

[Cielingcat]

Yeah, but it only has 5 levels of suck, compared to 10. Plus, it increases your caster level, which Dragon Disciple doesn't do.

[User3]

1171372147[/unixtime]]Sorry for going back to original topic, but I feel the need to point out that the [counturl=44]Hierophant[/counturl] is not only horrible, it is quite possibly worse than every class excepting only the commoner.

Seriously, I don't see the point in this class at all. I'd be happy if someone could point out something I'm missing here.

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

However, Heirophant does not suck. It exists for those people who want to whore themselves for caster level for Blasphemy (and similar). Because it increases caster level and gives you a choice of abilities which also increase caster level. (Obviously, wiz/UrP/SubC gets a higher CL, but most sane people don't allow UrP).

[Cielingcat]

It also works well for, well, an Ur Priest, since once you max that out you can continue whoring yourself for CLs and Real Ultimate Power.

[User3]

If you just wanted to whore Blasphemy why not have an actual viable character with a good UMD score and a staff of Blashpemy instead of setting five of your Cleric's character levels on fire? Seriously, off hand I can see you getting a caster level of thirty without putting any effort into it if you took 5 levels in Hierophant, which might be blockable by strong spell resistance, but putting in that same level of inconsequential effort out you can get a virtual staff caster level in the fifties which screws anything without spell immunity.

Aside from being ridiculously gamebreaking, abusing the blasphemy line of spells isn't really viable since a silence spell negates them anyway(the parts of the spells that you care about that is.). Any party that faces a blasphemy abuser that isn't TPK'd will start carrying around an intelligent item or low level mage hireling that always readies an action to cast silence whenever someone casts one of the blasphemy spells; and any BBEG whose minions keep getting pwnd by the PCs pimped out blasphemyesque spell will start preparing similar defenses.

[dbb]

I always just assumed that Hierophant was intended for Epic play, where you don't get any spell progression anyway.

[Judging__Eagle]

1171453153[/unixtime]]If you just wanted to whore Blasphemy why not have an actual viable character with a good UMD score and a staff of Blashpemy instead of setting five of your Cleric's character levels on fire? Seriously, off hand I can see you getting a caster level of thirty without putting any effort into it if you took 5 levels in Hierophant, which might be blockable by strong spell resistance, but putting in that same level of inconsequential effort out you can get a virtual staff caster level in the fifties which screws anything without spell immunity.

Aside from being ridiculously gamebreaking, abusing the blasphemy line of spells isn't really viable since a silence spell negates them anyway(the parts of the spells that you care about that is.). Any party that faces a blasphemy abuser that isn't TPK'd will start carrying around an intelligent item or low level mage hireling that always readies an action to cast silence whenever someone casts one of the blasphemy spells; and any BBEG whose minions keep getting pwnd by the PCs pimped out blasphemyesque spell will start preparing similar defenses.

Well, the idea is that you take:

Take 5 levels of 'something'; prep for Ur-Priest
Take 10 lvls of Ur Priest; get 9th lvl spells by lvl 15.
Take 5 lvls of Heirophant and gain 5 to 10 more caster levels in 5 levels.

Yes, Blashphemy Abuse is pretty bad, quickned Blashphemy Abuse is worse; Persistant Death Knell + Bags of Rats for near infinite Caster level is ust really, really bad.

I should prolly bag of rats + Death knell my archivist; so that he can cast really effective party buff spells.