If I'm reading the substitution levels right, and I may not be.. here seems to be the difference between a Fighter 6/Sword 8 (Clerist) and a Fighter 6/Sword 8.
Clerist gains effectively 14 levels of Cleric for the purpose of casting spells. Can cast up to 7th levels right now, with the break down being 0-level = 6, 1st = 5, 2nd = 5, 3rd = 4, 4th = 4, 5th = 3, 6th = 3, 7th = 2. These are the number of spells they get before taking into account Wisdom. Also gained is Turn Undead, but the Clerist turns undead at a cleric level of 5th level. Another Smite is gained also.
A regular Knight of the Sword at this level gains....... Defend the Weak +3. This adds +3 to your attack against an opponent next to your ally, and your ally gains a +3 to their AC.
Ok.. honestly.. does anyone see anything wrong with this? There are so many spells out there that would basically give you the same thing as Defend the Weak, without the ally needing to be a lesser level.
I was just hoping that maybe I didnt read something, or I read something wrong because this doesnt make sense to me. As I see it, and if I have read it correctly, there is a *huge* difference between the two and I think that is very weird. Even if Sword Knights are supposed to take Clerist levels, it seems weird that the two are so unevenely balanced. Any insight would be *greatly* appreciated.
I think there basically needs to be two different PrC's for Swords. One of them is a spellcasting version, the other isn't. I know effectively thats what kind of is going on with the Clerist substitution levels, but I think there needs to be clear cut two different versions. I think the Saving Throws, Attack Bonus, etc need to be different in the two versions.
I would rather see the Clerist PrC get maybe half spells each level or less than full spell progression. If they want more spells, they will have cleric levels that will add. I'd like to basically see the Clerist as a pseudo Paladin I guess. He gets access to some spells, but also has some fighting abilities thrown in there also. The Sword PrC without spells should have different abilities that add fighting in some way or another. But relatively, they should be different in certain ways, but still look somewhat similar. But I think there's a big difference of 14 levels of spells and what a regular Sword knight gets. I was one who complained the old Sword PrC looked too similar to the just the Cleric class, but this has taken it a weird way in my opinion. There is just too huge of a gap between a Sword who is a Clerist and one who isn't.
Even if Sword Knights are supposed to take Clerist levels, it seems weird that the two are so unevenely balanced. Any insight would be *greatly* appreciated.
In many eras, there aren't any Clerists. The Knight of the Sword is, in many ways, balanced best by its time period rather than by comparing it to itself.
Cheers,
Cam
14 levels of spellcasting is a *huge* difference in this case. Turn Undead and another Smite Evil is just gravy. I admit that the regular Sword gets a better HD, but sheesh with all the extra spells, the Clerist is just so far above it its not even funny.
I realize others may not see any problem with this, just was hoping there was a reason why one seems so underpowered when it comes down to it. I think the sheer number of spells given to a Clerist is staggering, but its my own personal opinion. I guess I equate it as seeing two PC's who are both playing fighters. Now give one of them 14 levels of cleric spellcasting. You dont think the other PC will look at the one and say "What the heck?".
Cheers,
Cam
Three bonus feats would hardly off-balance 14 caster levels of Cleric, which is hardly "limited". If you want to truly limit the Clerist Sword Knight, make his spells refresh at the same rate that he can prepare them (1/week).
That wouldn't bear out well in play, and would become more frustrating and tiresome for the Clerist player.
With all 10 levels of the prestige class, including three substitution levels taken at 1st, 4th, and 8th, the Clerist with a fighter/noble base (i.e. not a divine spellcaster) would have the spells per day and effective caster level of a 16th level cleric, minus domain spells or the ability to spontaneously cast cure spells. This is as good as the Clerist gets; compared to a straight cleric, they are perhaps a better fighter, but then a cleric 16/fighter 4 is nearly as good and has better spellcasting.
There was a lot of juggling and tweaking involved, and I'm sure there are many other iterations that would have edged out this version in some ways, but I think we're pretty happy with this one.
Cheers,
Cam
Giving 16 spell levels by the end of the PrC just seems like a lot, when adding in all the other abilities also. It seems really weird to me that the Clerist gains +1 attack bonus each level, has a high Will *and* Fort, gains spells for every level of the class *and* for previous class levels they had beforehand, Turn Undead (even while being weak) which they can use for Divine feats, *and* feats from the 6 Fighter levels beforehand, *and* the other abilities that the Sword knight gets. To me, it just screams overpowered and definetely overshadows the other two PrC's by a lot. I think this is very sad. I have yet to see a Sword PrC fix that actually seems to "flow" right and actually work, it kind of saddens me. It seems like one PrC or two of the KoS's can look cool, but there's always another one out of wack per se.
Its the sheer number of spells given to a Clerist that bothers me. I understand the restriction of they cant swap out for Cure spells, no domains, etc. But this can all be fixed pretty easily by taking one level of cleric when it comes down to it.
I could see there being a Sword PrC eventually that gives Sword Knights a spell level each level of the PrC, but it'd have to have a few unique abilities to go along with it. I'd rather there be a small decrease in spell levels, say 6/10 and there be in an increase of abilities given or something so that there is a difference between a Clerist and a Cleric. I want a Cleric and a Clerist to be markedly different. In no way, shape, or form do I feel comfortable for giving spell levels for previous classes. And that is exactly what the Clerist does. Not only do they get spells each level of the PrC, but it retroactively gives spells for previous levels the PC had before taking the PrC. I think this is just wrong. Especially when most of the downsiders can be fixed by taking one level in the cleric class. The only *real* down part of the spells is that you cant choose different ones each day.. but honestly how often do your spellcasters change their spells? They may tweak one or two a day, but I rarely see ppl overhaul their whole list.
With the Sword Knight getting a +1 Attack Bonus every level, and probably having Fighter levels beforehand, the Clerist can easily take the fighter role in a party and let a different PC be a cleric who can swap out spells if needed. And now the Clerist has 16 levels of spells for extra healing, etc.
All in all, I think this was a bad fix and hope for a better version to come out eventually. As I said before, it seems to be a hard thing to get the Knight of Solamnia PrC"s down pat and actually working right. While it sucks to have so many versions made to try to "fix" this, I guess I'll just wait for a new one again.
I actually have a question, something I am failing to understand, in the Knight of the Sword PRC, with the defend the Weak, does it count with lesser hit die? I need clarification. Would a KOS, say of 7th level, be able to apply that bonus to an ally, say a White Robe or a rouge, next to them?
If the ally has fewer effective character levels or Hit Dice than the Knight of the Sword, then it counts. It doesn't matter what their class, race, etc is.
Cheers,
Cam
Grazie Mr. Banks. One other question. It is said in the book that there are many priests within the ransk of the Knights of the Crown, Sowrd, Rose. When I read that I assume that they are clerics of Kiri-Jolith. Is this necessary true? Could you have clerics of Habbakuk or even Shinare now that she is in the Trimuvurate or of Paladine when he was a god? Please clear up this ambiguity for moi.
The only god that has ever granted divine powers to the Knights of Solamnia is Kiri-Jolith (and this goes all the way back to Dragonlance Adventures.) Now, there's nothing stopping a cleric/druid/ranger of Habbakuk or a cleric of Shinare from becoming a knight, but they wouldn't get any spellcasting benefit from the prestige classes. None of the Clerists, in other words, are followers of any other deity other than KJ.
Most other clerics end up in the Auxiliary, alongside the Kingfishers and so forth.
Cheers,
Cam
So could you have a cleric of Paladine, when he was a god, or even Habbakuk, Knight of the Rose? Or of the Crown?
Technically, yes, but he'd suffer from not being able to advance his spellcasting, and I would suggest that it would be rare. You are more likely to have a paladin than a cleric of a non-KJ deity.
Cheers,
Cam
The Kingfisher, (I think) gets only Divine Caster Levels, and just here and there things that contradict older novels and books, usually in the history sections. If I see them again I'll post them.
The Kingfisher uses substitution levels for wizard, so it's arcane, not divine. It's the Clerist that uses divine substitution levels.
and just here and there things that contradict older novels and books, usually in the history sections. If I see them again I'll post them.
Those aren't errors, those are clarifications and revisions.
Cheers,
Cam
I do not recall reading that the Kingfisher gets divine spells.
See my post above.
In my book, the class list shows +1 level to DIVINE Class.
There's no mention of gaining +1 level to a divine class in the Kingfisher substution level section. I'm not sure what you're looking at.
The Legion Sorcerer table has an error that says "divine" rather than "arcane" but the text (and the name of the prestige class!) clearly notes that they advance in arcane spellcasting levels.
Cheers,
Cam
I was under the impression that we were talking about the Knigths of Solamnia?
Originally, yes. Beckett was apparently confused about where he saw errors in the book, however. Glass is half empty vs. glass is half full, etc etc.
Cheers,
Cam