Sublime chord balance?

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
Complete Arcane?

Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
(from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
new music types from the PrC itself).


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
25 answers Last reply
More about sublime chord balance
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    > Complete Arcane?
    >
    > Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
    > (from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
    > for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
    > new music types from the PrC itself).

    IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    probably should be disallowed, but if it's used as it was intended,
    then it's nice and balanced.

    Laszlo
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > > > What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    > > > Complete Arcane?
    > > >
    > > > Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
    > > > (from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
    > > > for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
    > > > new music types from the PrC itself).
    > >
    > > IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    > > probably should be disallowed,
    >
    > Which would those be?

    Cristopher Adams has it right. The Sublime Chord's spell progression
    has some wonky interactions with multicaster PrCs like Mystic Theurge
    or Ur-Priest. As long as you stay away from those, there shouldn't be a
    problem.

    > I've been looking at different ways to build a decent melee bard
    > recently, and sublime chord seems like a nice addition to the list,
    > despite nominally being much more spell-focused than melee-focused.

    Sounds neat. If you ever play with him, tell us how it went. :)

    Laszlo
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >
    >> What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    >> Complete Arcane?
    >>
    >> Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
    >> (from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
    >> for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
    >> new music types from the PrC itself).
    >
    > IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    > probably should be disallowed, but if it's used as it was intended,
    > then it's nice and balanced.

    The "character optimisation" posters on the Wizards of the Coast fora love to
    use prestige classes (like, say, the mystic theurge) in combination with *other*
    prestige classes which give wackily accelerated spellcasting (like, say, the
    ur-priest), which can produce some very powerful characters . . . but I think
    90% of the problems can be solved if you disallow the use of "+1 spellcasting
    level" prestige class features to advance the spellcasting granted by a prestige
    class.

    The sublime chord, in fact, is the first use by Wizards of the Coast of a
    mechanic Monte Cook first used way back in the first "Book of Hallowed Might" -
    namely, a prestige class with its own spell progression that doesn't begin at
    1st level a la ur-priest et alia. I am so completely *for* this solution I
    cannot begin to express my approval. Monte's version, for what it's worth, is
    called the hallowed mage; as the name suggests, it's a multiclass facilitator
    for clerics and wizards. Apart from a specific list of hallowed mage spells
    drawn from the cleric and wizards lists (and cast as divine spells), the
    hallowed mage also learns to ignore up to 30% worth of arcane spell failure at
    3rd level, and 100% at 10th. They also add all their spellcasting class levels
    together to determine caster level.

    I'll quote Monte on the reasoning for the design:

    "It is currently very difficult to have a multiclassed spell user, such as a
    cleric/wizard, that does not pay for her increased versatility with a dramatic
    decrease in power. Compare the power of a 10th-level cleric/10th-level wizard
    with that of a 20th-level cleric or wizard, for example. The ability to cast
    both Cone of Cold and Cure Critical Wounds does not compensate for the inability
    to cast Wish or Miracle.

    "Where are spells of 1st through 3rd levels? The hallowed mage represents an
    attempt to create a class that fuses the divine and arcane spellcaster into one.
    Since the class requires that a character already be able to cast 3rd-level
    divine and arcane spells, the hallowed mage spell list starts out at 4th level
    with a limited fusion of mostly 4th-level wizard and cleric spells. Why not just
    call these 1st-level hallowed
    mage spells? Because that would artificially alter magic item pricing,
    spellcasting pricing, saving throw Difficulty Classes, and other aspects that
    rely on spell level to accurately measure relative power."

    As a sample, this is the hallowed mage's 4th-level spell list:

    Confusion
    Cure Critical Wounds
    Detect Scrying
    Dimension Door
    Dimensional Anchor
    Ethereal Prison (new spell)
    Halo of Glory (new spell)
    Ice Storm
    Minor Creation
    Solid Fog
    Summon Monster IV
    Truth's Wings (new spell)
    Wall of Fire
    Wall of Ice

    The "Book of Hallowed Might" was published in 2002, by the way. ;) I've been
    lamenting the lack of use this design has had ever since I acquired my copy.

    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
    and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
    danger. It works the same in any country.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I don't buy into worrying about abuse when any combo involves Ur Priest
    and/or Assassin. Sure, from a pure theoretical application let the
    abuse commense, but for practical purposes, no PC in a generic game
    would take Ur Pirest or Assassin because you have to be Evil.

    I'm also not too concerned about how a 20th level character with
    w/x/y/z classes is troublesome. Prestige Classes have exacting
    requirements. Some are relatively easier to achieve than others. Such
    a character has to be very selective in Feat choices and skill point
    allocation. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but in these
    type of theoretical discussions, this never gets discussed, Such a
    character is going to be narrowly focused.

    20th level characters by their nature are already powerful. It may be
    possible for a character to have 9th level spells at level 20 with a
    16+ BAB. However, it usually means the character can only cast one
    9th level spell. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids have been casting 9th
    level spells since 17th level and are casting 4 of them per day at 20.
    (The cleric casts 5 per day counting his Domain). The Sorcerer has
    been casting 9th level spells since 18th level and casts even more per
    day by the time he reaches 20th level.

    What also usually gets ignored is the play time before reaching 20th
    level. It may very well be the character will be "kewl" and "awesome"
    at 20th level, but the journey towards it has the character be much
    less kewl and awesome. Plus, there's no guarantee the character would
    even reach 20th level in a given campaign since real life intrudes on
    campaigns. Some campaigns do reach 20th level and beyond. The
    standard, though, is not because players move, players are bored with
    the campaign, players graduate, etc. Plus, if the character dies, the
    ease of coming back is highly dependent upon the game world, and unless
    True Resurrection is used, reaching 20th level is even more delayed.

    Gerald Katz
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    > > What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    > > Complete Arcane?
    > >
    > > Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
    > > (from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
    > > for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
    > > new music types from the PrC itself).
    >
    > IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    > probably should be disallowed,

    Which would those be?

    I've been looking at different ways to build a decent melee bard
    recently, and sublime chord seems like a nice addition to the list,
    despite nominally being much more spell-focused than melee-focused.

    Even a few levels can get you access to fire shield, polymorph (which
    has some nice synergy with the song of arcane power)... and as you
    progress, there's more and more spells to burn with Arcane Strike. The
    BAB hit is the main downside, but by the time it becomes significant,
    you can probably afford a wand of divine power and have the UMD modifier
    to reliably use it.

    > but if it's used as it was intended, then it's nice and balanced.

    Cool.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu> wrote:
    >Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >> > IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with [Sublime
    >> > Chord] which probably should be disallowed,
    >>
    >> Which would those be?
    >
    >Cristopher Adams has it right. The Sublime Chord's spell progression
    >has some wonky interactions with multicaster PrCs like Mystic Theurge
    >or Ur-Priest. As long as you stay away from those, there shouldn't be a
    >problem.

    Well, not Ur-Priest, exactly. I mean, yes, some wonkiness there (which
    I posted about; see below).


    >> I've been looking at different ways to build a decent melee bard
    >> recently, and sublime chord seems like a nice addition to the list,
    >> despite nominally being much more spell-focused than melee-focused.

    The key with Sublime Chord is, you only need to take one level in it,
    and then go take a class that gives you decent BAB and/or hit points.

    Fochlucan Lyrist is the most obvious:

    Rogue 2 / Bard 7 / Druid 1 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyrist 9
    would work fine, for example. It's powerful, but not abusively so,
    yielding a BAB +15 character at 20th.


    Fairly equivalent (but slightly odder) is:

    Bard 7 / Druid 1 / Shadowdancer 2 / Sublime Chord 1 / Fochlucan Lyrist 9.


    The abusive example is:

    Rogue 2 / Wizard 5 / Ur-Priest 1 / Bard 1 / Druid 1 / Chord 1 / Lyrist 9
    (with high enough stats, you get 9th level spells in both Arcane and
    Divine).

    (google-news search for (title contains "silly abuse") on rgfd
    for details on brokenness, and why one might prefer to build
    something like Wizard 5 / Bard 1 / Wu-Jen 1 / Warmage 1 / Sorc 1
    / Ur-Priest 2 / Sublime Chord 1 / Theurge 8...)


    If you were to go:

    Bard 7 / Fighter 2 / Eldritch Knight 9 / Sublime Chord 1 / Spellsword 1,
    taking the first level of EKn before Sublime Chord and the rest after,
    you end up with a BAB of +17, full Sublime Chord spellcasting progression,
    but no divine spellcasting or high-level bardic abilities.

    Another idea is:

    Monk 2 / Bard 3 / Enlightened Fist 5 / Druid 1 / Sublime Chord 1 / Lyrist 8.
    I think this works... but it's kinda silly.


    This combination is great for BAB (+18 at 20th), but yields poor
    spellcasting and doesn't give you Song of Freedom until 20th level:

    Ranger 7 / Bard 2 / Druid 1 / Lyrist 10


    I have some ideas about Monk-or-Rogue/Wizard/Loremaster/Druid/Chord/Lyrist
    builds, but they're not firm in my mind yet, and don't really help
    your concept.

    Donald
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    > > > > What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    > > > > Complete Arcane?
    > > > >
    > > > > Basically, it's a bard PrC which lets the bard reach 9th-level spells
    > > > > (from both bard and Sor/Wiz) lists by character level 19th, in exchange
    > > > > for weakening his BAB, skills and music (debatable, since you get some
    > > > > new music types from the PrC itself).
    > > >
    > > > IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    > > > probably should be disallowed,
    > >
    > > Which would those be?
    >
    > Cristopher Adams has it right. The Sublime Chord's spell progression
    > has some wonky interactions with multicaster PrCs like Mystic Theurge
    > or Ur-Priest. As long as you stay away from those, there shouldn't be a
    > problem.

    Ah, right, that's what I expected. It's OK then; things which are
    considered obvious twistings of the rules as intended (and this would
    be) don't fly in our group.

    > > I've been looking at different ways to build a decent melee bard
    > > recently, and sublime chord seems like a nice addition to the list,
    > > despite nominally being much more spell-focused than melee-focused.
    >
    > Sounds neat. If you ever play with him, tell us how it went. :)

    Sure. If my monk/fighter gets killed in CotSQ (and according to my prior
    experience with CotSQ, that's not at all unlikely), this is the most
    likely replacement (followed by a gnome paladin/bard and a
    rogue/bard/assassin).


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    forumite@netzero.com wrote:

    > I don't buy into worrying about abuse when any combo involves Ur Priest
    > and/or Assassin. Sure, from a pure theoretical application let the
    > abuse commense, but for practical purposes, no PC in a generic game
    > would take Ur Pirest or Assassin because you have to be Evil.

    My experience differs on this. I'm seriously considering playing an
    assassin as my next character and another player is playing an Evil
    rogue in another campaign (it wasn't even a requirement for anything in
    particular). And those aren't specifically Evil campaigns, just your
    regular D&D adventuring.

    > What also usually gets ignored is the play time before reaching 20th
    > level.

    Right: when I'm building a character, I don't want him to be hideously
    powerful at 20th at the cost of being weak from 1st-16th. I want him to
    be at least decent within a level or two of the start of the game.
    Which, obviously, might mean that I'm willing to "have been" weak 1st-
    6th if we're starting at 7th... but it's rarely that we start at the
    kind of levels that usually get considered on, for example, WotC
    Character Optimization boards (which is, basically, 20th).


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Hadsil wrote:
    >
    > I don't buy into worrying about abuse when any combo involves Ur Priest
    > and/or Assassin. Sure, from a pure theoretical application let the
    > abuse commense, but for practical purposes, no PC in a generic game
    > would take Ur Pirest or Assassin because you have to be Evil.

    Sounds like your idea of "generic" is very different. In my experience it's not
    unusual in the slightest to play evil characters - Hong's game, for instance, is
    one in which he feels the need to be explicit about the fact that he wants us to
    play "white hats".

    To say nothing of the fact that "evil" != "villain". I can conceive of a very
    party-friendly evil character.

    > I'm also not too concerned about how a 20th level character with
    > w/x/y/z classes is troublesome. Prestige Classes have exacting
    > requirements. Some are relatively easier to achieve than others. Such
    > a character has to be very selective in Feat choices and skill point
    > allocation. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but in these
    > type of theoretical discussions, this never gets discussed, Such a
    > character is going to be narrowly focused.

    It's usually not that difficult to make this stuff work, if you're careful.

    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
    and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
    danger. It works the same in any country.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Christopher Adams wrote:
    > Hadsil wrote:
    > >
    > > I don't buy into worrying about abuse when any combo involves Ur Priest
    > > and/or Assassin. Sure, from a pure theoretical application let the
    > > abuse commense, but for practical purposes, no PC in a generic game
    > > would take Ur Pirest or Assassin because you have to be Evil.
    >
    > Sounds like your idea of "generic" is very different. In my experience it's not
    > unusual in the slightest to play evil characters - Hong's game, for instance, is
    > one in which he feels the need to be explicit about the fact that he wants us to
    > play "white hats".
    >
    > To say nothing of the fact that "evil" != "villain". I can conceive of a very
    > party-friendly evil character.
    >

    Fair enough. I'll reiterate "generic" to mean the stereotype standard
    the game expects. If a player character is Evil, then usually it's an
    all-Evil campaign, which is not generic, or eventually the party breaks
    up because the Evil character is a spy for the bad guys or personality
    conflict is worse than the standard. It would be unusual, i.e. not
    generic, as I see it for a party to start at 1st level with one
    character Evil and continue on as a "normal" party members are the
    heroes all the way to 20th level and beyond with the Evil character
    really, really, being a true member of the party with all that entails.

    Of course, just to add a little hypocrisy on my part, I will admit back
    in college in a 2E campaign one party member was Evil. He hid it well
    until he goofed, and I found out with a Detect Evil spell. Still, he
    was a "party member".

    > > I'm also not too concerned about how a 20th level character with
    > > w/x/y/z classes is troublesome. Prestige Classes have exacting
    > > requirements. Some are relatively easier to achieve than others. Such
    > > a character has to be very selective in Feat choices and skill point
    > > allocation. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but in these
    > > type of theoretical discussions, this never gets discussed, Such a
    > > character is going to be narrowly focused.
    >
    > It's usually not that difficult to make this stuff work, if you're careful.
    >
    > --
    > Christopher Adams

    Not difficult, just narrow. There's still some room for variety, but
    not much. For example, two wizard/loremasters can be a lot different
    from each other despite the same pre-requistes while two
    wizard/fighter/eldritch knight/spellswords would be less so.

    Gerald Katz
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Christopher Adams" <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote in
    news:cu%ke.886$BR4.875@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

    > The sublime chord, in fact, is the first use by Wizards of the Coast
    > of a mechanic Monte Cook first used way back in the first "Book of
    > Hallowed Might" - namely, a prestige class with its own spell
    > progression that doesn't begin at 1st level a la ur-priest et alia.

    Not quite, Nar Demonbinder from Unapproachable East (May '03) gets 4th-8th
    level arcane spells Sorcerer-style.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Alex Lamb wrote:
    > Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg@uqconnect.net> wrote:
    >
    >> Which reminds me: I haven't seen any posts from Hong
    >> for a while, and I've been looking forward to a
    >> session update ... what's up there?

    His website (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~ho­ng/dnd) is still up, and
    at the bottom there's a link you can use to email him.

    > Kaos seems to have gone missing too.

    Kaos's last email address can be obtained by removing the three numbers
    from <gafgirl1@2allstream3.net>

    Nockermensch has also stopped posting. :-(

    A search on Google Groups reveals:

    Last rgfd post Last Usenet post

    Hong Ooi: April 8, 2005 May 6th on alt.games.whitewolf
    Kaos: February 6, 2005 <- rgfd post
    Nockermensch: April 12, 2005 <- rgfd post


    Arivne
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

    > The sublime chord, in fact, is the first use by Wizards of the Coast of a
    > mechanic Monte Cook first used way back in the first "Book of Hallowed Might" -
    > namely, a prestige class with its own spell progression that doesn't begin at
    > 1st level a la ur-priest et alia.

    Just to be nitpicky, I think the Nar demonbinder from Unapproachable
    East was here before Complete Arcane.

    > I am so completely *for* this solution I cannot begin to express my approval.

    There are interesting things to be done with the mechanic, yes, and not
    many of them have been.

    But there are potential problems if the class isn't specifically
    targeted at 11th-level (as the sublime chord is and the demonbinder
    isn't), I think.

    A sorcerer can take demonbinder after 8th level, and the 7 levels of the
    PrC grant 4th- to 8th-level spells. So at 15th, you're casting 8th-level
    spells, but less of them and from a more restricted list than a regular
    sorc, but you have some neato class abilities... so far so good.

    But what next? The next five levels of sorcerer will give you 4th- to
    6th-level spells. Which is more than some people will ever have, I
    guess, but it's not all that great for the character levels we're
    talking: levels 16th-20th, you're getting the same increases to your
    sorcerous power as if you were Sor8/Ftr7! And it probably feels even
    worse, since the Sor/Ftr is looking forward to the next spell level, and
    the demonbinde has been casting 5th-level spells for six levels now, so
    when he gets some more... w00t.

    When I was tinkering with the demonbinder it seemed like it might be
    really tempting to multiclass into something like rogue or fighter once
    you finished with the PrC.

    Then again, one might say that this is a feature and not a bug...

    > Monte's version, for what it's worth, is
    > called the hallowed mage; as the name suggests, it's a multiclass facilitator
    > for clerics and wizards. Apart from a specific list of hallowed mage spells
    > drawn from the cleric and wizards lists (and cast as divine spells), the
    > hallowed mage also learns to ignore up to 30% worth of arcane spell failure at
    > 3rd level, and 100% at 10th. They also add all their spellcasting class levels
    > together to determine caster level.

    What's the soonest possible entry point, and what is the spell level
    range the hallowed mage gets?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005, Christopher Adams wrote:

    > Sounds like your idea of "generic" is very different. In my experience
    > it's not unusual in the slightest to play evil characters - Hong's game,
    > for instance, is one in which he feels the need to be explicit about the
    > fact that he wants us to play "white hats".

    Which reminds me: I haven't seen any posts from Hong for a while, and I've
    been looking forward to a session update ... what's up there?

    Cheers,

    Gary Johnson
    --
    Home Page: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg
    X-Men Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/xmen_campaign
    Fantasy Campaign Setting: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzjohnsg/selentia.htm
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505270841120.1944@fox.uq.net.au>,
    Gary Johnson <zzjohnsg@uqconnect.net> wrote:
    >On Thu, 26 May 2005, Christopher Adams wrote:
    >Which reminds me: I haven't seen any posts from Hong for a while, and I've
    >been looking forward to a session update ... what's up there?

    Kaos seems to have gone missing too.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:
    >
    >> Monte's version, for what it's worth, is
    >> called the hallowed mage; as the name suggests, it's a multiclass
    >> facilitator for clerics and wizards. Apart from a specific list of
    >> hallowed mage spells drawn from the cleric and wizards lists (and cast
    >> as divine spells), the hallowed mage also learns to ignore up to 30%
    >> worth of arcane spell failure at 3rd level, and 100% at 10th. They also
    >> add all their spellcasting class levels together to determine caster
    >> level.
    >
    > What's the soonest possible entry point, and what is the spell level
    > range the hallowed mage gets?

    You can enter after 10th level - it requires 3rd-level divine spells and
    3rd-level arcane spells. The range goes from 4th to 9th.

    It's pretty much wholly designed to not only produce a viable cleric/wizard
    multiclass, but to enforce a thematic and flavourful reduction of potential
    power - by specifying a class spell list drawn from the cleric and wizard lists,
    you can avoid the selection of the "best" spells from both lists. Here's the 9th
    spell level list:

    Confutation of the Demon: Destroys evil outsider or inflicts 10d6 damage.

    Foresight: “Sixth sense” warns of impending danger.

    Gate: Connects two planes for travel or summoning.

    Meteor Swarm: Deals 24d6 fire damage, plus bursts.

    Miracle: Requests a deity’s intercession.

    Prismatic Sphere: As prismatic wall surrounding all sides.

    Refuge: Alters item to transport its possessor to you.

    Storm of Vengeance: Storm rains acid, lightning, and hail.

    Summon Monster IX: Calls outsider to fight for you.

    Temporal Stasis: Puts subject into suspended animation.

    True Resurrection: As resurrection but remains aren’t needed.

    Wellspring of Soul’s Light†: Inflicts 10d6 on all evil creatures and summons one
    10th-level paladin/four caster levels.


    Clearly, it's good but limited. It's easy to conceive of spells which a wizard
    might prefer to have at 9th level rather than the cleric spells he gets instead,
    and vice versa. Plus, it's 1 (+ bonus) 9th-level spells per day - a significant
    reduction.


    In the light of "you still only cast one spell per round" thinking, I would
    suggest beefing it up a little in this latter regard. Monte doesn't get
    everything right. ;)


    With the virtual impossibility of entering before 11th character level, it
    solves the "what do you do when you finish at 18th level?" problem.


    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
    and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
    danger. It works the same in any country.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Hadsil wrote:
    >
    > Fair enough. I'll reiterate "generic" to mean the stereotype standard
    > the game expects. If a player character is Evil, then usually it's an
    > all-Evil campaign, which is not generic, or eventually the party breaks
    > up because the Evil character is a spy for the bad guys or personality
    > conflict is worse than the standard. It would be unusual, i.e. not
    > generic, as I see it for a party to start at 1st level with one
    > character Evil and continue on as a "normal" party members are the
    > heroes all the way to 20th level and beyond with the Evil character
    > really, really, being a true member of the party with all that entails.

    You're throwing around generalisations I don't think are warranted. Not only
    would I argue that the way the game is written (in terms of what characters are
    morally and ethically like) is not the same as the way the game is played in the
    real world, but you're also disregarding my point.

    What stops a character who doesn't care about anyone except himself and his
    friends from tagging along on the crusade to save the world because they're his
    friends and because he thinks he can profit from it in some incidental way?
    Through fame and the gratitude of the populace, if nothing else. A person can be
    willing to sacrifice themselves for those they care about and also be willing to
    use and abuse those they don't - most members of the Mafia would be evil, but
    some of them are known to die to protect their crew (admittedly, fewer than
    those who are willing to kill for it or willing to squeal to save themselves).

    If nothing else, I think a very interesting story could arise when a morally
    corrupt person with a strong sense of loyalty to his family and/or friends gets
    involved in a quest to defeat metaphysical evil, a task which would seem to call
    for heroes with noble spirits and kind hearts.

    > Not difficult, just narrow. There's still some room for variety, but
    > not much. For example, two wizard/loremasters can be a lot different
    > from each other despite the same pre-requistes while two
    > wizard/fighter/eldritch knight/spellswords would be less so.

    Trivially disproven. There can be as many disparate members of such a set as
    there are fighter specialisations.

    --
    Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
    What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
    understand?
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
    http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html

    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
    leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
    and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
    danger. It works the same in any country.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:

    > >> Monte's version, for what it's worth, is
    > >> called the hallowed mage; as the name suggests, it's a multiclass
    > >> facilitator for clerics and wizards. Apart from a specific list of
    > >> hallowed mage spells drawn from the cleric and wizards lists (and cast
    > >> as divine spells), the hallowed mage also learns to ignore up to 30%
    > >> worth of arcane spell failure at 3rd level, and 100% at 10th. They also
    > >> add all their spellcasting class levels together to determine caster
    > >> level.
    > >
    > > What's the soonest possible entry point, and what is the spell level
    > > range the hallowed mage gets?
    >
    > You can enter after 10th level - it requires 3rd-level divine spells and
    > 3rd-level arcane spells. The range goes from 4th to 9th.

    Hm. It might be a bit of a pain before you enter the PrC. Being a
    Clr5/Wiz5 isn't all that at 10th level.

    > With the virtual impossibility of entering before 11th character level, it
    > solves the "what do you do when you finish at 18th level?" problem.

    That's what I wanted to check, yes.

    What do you think about the problem in the classes that do have it (like
    Nar demonbider)? Is it real a problem? What would you do if you played a
    Nar demonbinder and finished the PrC? As a designer, would you make a
    point of making all such PrCs require 10 levels to qualify?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 13:56:24 GMT, "Christopher Adams"
    <mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid> wrote:

    >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    >>
    >>> What's the group's collective opinion on the sublime chord PrC, from
    >>> Complete Arcane?

    [...]

    >> IMO, it's fine. There are a couple of broken class combos with it which
    >> probably should be disallowed, but if it's used as it was intended,
    >> then it's nice and balanced.
    >
    >The "character optimisation" posters on the Wizards of the Coast fora love to
    >use prestige classes (like, say, the mystic theurge) in combination with *other*
    >prestige classes which give wackily accelerated spellcasting (like, say, the
    >ur-priest), which can produce some very powerful characters . . . but I think
    >90% of the problems can be solved if you disallow the use of "+1 spellcasting
    >level" prestige class features to advance the spellcasting granted by a prestige
    >class.

    IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    that?

    I find that it works nicely to quash cheesy "ranger 3/wizard
    2/dairymaid 2/arcane rennet 1/divine milk X" combinations. And it
    allows me to be easy about players taking prestige and customized
    classes that I'd otherwise have to veto.


    --
    Erol K. Bayburt
    ErolB1@aol.com
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
    >
    > IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    > prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    > that?

    Hell no. I feel confident enough about my sense of balance that I don't
    have to resort to kludges like that.

    > I find that it works nicely to quash cheesy "ranger 3/wizard
    > 2/dairymaid 2/arcane rennet 1/divine milk X" combinations. And it
    > allows me to be easy about players taking prestige and customized
    > classes that I'd otherwise have to veto.

    I just tell them this: "I will generally allow anything that is
    balanced, regardless of whether it's WotC or not. If you want to make a
    custom feat or PrC, no problem, talk to me, we can work it out. If you
    have a specific obscure feat or PrC combo planned for your character,
    TELL ME ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE. If you do, we can talk it through, and you
    won't have a nasty surprise waiting for you when you try to pick up the
    last part of the combo."

    I've found this generally works quite well. Once players understand
    what I'm about, they talk to me about their plans for their characters,
    and I can help them make a balanced character who's similar to what
    they have planned.

    Also, I generally allow "retcons": if a player decides that their feat
    or PrC selection was a bad idea, or it turns out that they didn't ask
    me about their planned broken feat combo and now they're stranded, I'll
    allow them to retroactively change it, as long as they're not using
    this to prepare for specific situations, or to dodge a weak spot in a
    character build's level progression.

    I don't really like retconning, but to me, it's far preferable to
    having a player who's unhappy with his character.

    Laszlo
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
    > >
    > > IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    > > prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    > > that?
    >
    > Hell no. I feel confident enough about my sense of balance that I don't
    > have to resort to kludges like that.

    Amen, brother!

    -Bluto
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 28 May 2005 01:51:19 -0700, laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    >Erol K. Bayburt wrote:
    >>
    >> IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    >> prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    >> that?
    >
    >Hell no. I feel confident enough about my sense of balance that I don't
    >have to resort to kludges like that.

    A matter of taste, there. To my way of thinking, taking multiple
    prestige classes *is* a kludge, even if the combo doesn't give cheesy
    synergies.

    So I don't think of my "only one prestige class per character" rule as
    being a kludge, but rather as something that prevents kludges.

    YMMV, and obviously does.

    --
    Erol K. Bayburt
    ErolB1@aol.com
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    ErolB1@comcast.net wrote:

    > >> IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    > >> prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    > >> that?
    > >
    > >Hell no. I feel confident enough about my sense of balance that I don't
    > >have to resort to kludges like that.
    >
    > A matter of taste, there. To my way of thinking, taking multiple
    > prestige classes *is* a kludge, even if the combo doesn't give cheesy
    > synergies.

    In a way, all multiclassing is a kludge. Ideally, you don't need to be a
    Ftr/Clr, if you can be a paladin. You don't need to be a Ftr/Sor, if you
    can be a battle sorcerer. You don't need to be a Rog/Wiz, if you can be
    an arcane trickster (which you can't, as without multiclassing and
    PrCs).

    But there's no end to various combinations and mixes people might want
    to play, even disregarding cheesy synergy. Someone might want to play a
    militarty wilderness scout. Someone might want to play a soldier who
    spends a lot of time on the move in the wild. You might create a class
    for each of them, but it's much easier just to let the first guy be a
    Rgr16/Ftr4 and the other one a Ftr16/Rgr4.

    And the same reasoning is only slightly less valid for PrCs. (Less,
    since PrCs tend to be more focused, so it's somewhat harder to say "I'm
    totally focused on killing people, but I'm also totally focused on
    gathering knowledge, so I'm an assassin/loremaster").


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:22:14 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
    wrote:

    >ErolB1@comcast.net wrote:
    >
    >> >> IMC I have an iron rule that no character may have more than one (1)
    >> >> prestige or custom class. Does anyone else here have a house rule like
    >> >> that?
    >> >
    >> >Hell no. I feel confident enough about my sense of balance that I don't
    >> >have to resort to kludges like that.
    >>
    >> A matter of taste, there. To my way of thinking, taking multiple
    >> prestige classes *is* a kludge, even if the combo doesn't give cheesy
    >> synergies.
    >
    >In a way, all multiclassing is a kludge. Ideally, you don't need to be a
    >Ftr/Clr, if you can be a paladin. You don't need to be a Ftr/Sor, if you
    >can be a battle sorcerer. You don't need to be a Rog/Wiz, if you can be
    >an arcane trickster (which you can't, as without multiclassing and
    >PrCs).
    >
    >But there's no end to various combinations and mixes people might want
    >to play, even disregarding cheesy synergy. Someone might want to play a
    >militarty wilderness scout. Someone might want to play a soldier who
    >spends a lot of time on the move in the wild. You might create a class
    >for each of them, but it's much easier just to let the first guy be a
    >Rgr16/Ftr4 and the other one a Ftr16/Rgr4.
    >
    >And the same reasoning is only slightly less valid for PrCs. (Less,
    >since PrCs tend to be more focused, so it's somewhat harder to say "I'm
    >totally focused on killing people, but I'm also totally focused on
    >gathering knowledge, so I'm an assassin/loremaster").

    Again, mileage varies. I find this reasoning a *lot* less valid for
    PrCs since PrCs aren't limited in number like core classes are.

    Players aren't limited to just the PrCs in the SRD or DMG. They aren't
    limited to just the PrCs published by WOTC. IMC at least they can take
    PrCs from any source, and can modify them, and can even create their
    own from scratch.

    And as you point out, multiclassing itself is a kludge. By my lights,
    it becomes a bigger kludge as you add more classes to a combo. Since
    players have to start with the core classes IMC, it's reasonable to
    let them multiclass 2 or possibly 3 core classes to match their
    character conception. If that isn't enough, they can then throw in a
    PrC to more exactly match the character conception.

    But since PrCs are completely customizable, at least the way I run
    them, I don't see a need for more than one per character. They
    effectively *are* "a class for each of them." And since allowing more
    than one adds to the kludge factor and to my GM workload (checking for
    synergy cheese), it's my prefered solution to say "you can have only
    one."

    (On further thought, a lot of my attitude comes from a certain wistful
    wishing that 3.x could be run without the use of *any* PrCs - that
    core-class multiclassing, feats, and various class options would be
    enough by themselves to give players a satisfactory choice of
    character conceptions. Unfortunately they aren't enough, and PrCs are
    the method 3.x uses to cover the gaps and shortfalls.)


    --
    Erol K. Bayburt
    ErolB1@aol.com
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Christopher Adams wrote:
    > Jasin Zujovic wrote:
    > > mhacdebhandia@yahoo.invalid wrote:
    > >
    > >> Monte's version, for what it's worth, is
    > >> called the hallowed mage; as the name suggests, it's a multiclass
    > >> facilitator for clerics and wizards. Apart from a specific list of
    > >> hallowed mage spells drawn from the cleric and wizards lists (and cast
    > >> as divine spells), the hallowed mage also learns to ignore up to 30%
    > >> worth of arcane spell failure at 3rd level, and 100% at 10th. They also
    > >> add all their spellcasting class levels together to determine caster
    > >> level.
    > >
    > > What's the soonest possible entry point, and what is the spell level
    > > range the hallowed mage gets?
    >
    > You can enter after 10th level - it requires 3rd-level divine spells and
    > 3rd-level arcane spells. The range goes from 4th to 9th.

    That would be after 8th then. Clc3/Wiz3/MT2 qualifies.

    Stacking two facilitator classes.

    Really, what they need to do is FIX caster multiclassing, not try to
    introduce a separate prestige class for every caster multiclass there
    is.

    DougL
Ask a new question

Read More

Music Games Exchange Video Games