No Prestige Classes

[airwalkrr]

But you seem to think that multiclassing IS power-gaming, even if it is roleplayed. And that multiclassing spellcasters somehow creates more powerful characters, which it doesn't.

IME, multiclassing is usually nothing more than a method of powergaming. I know more players who take their next level based on what kind of cool powers they can get than based on what makes the most sense for their character. And talking about spellcasters is a straw man. In the first place, I never said I thought multiclassed spellcasters were necessarily the problem. It is usually characters without spellcasting who are the biggest offenders because they cannot multiclass until they are able to take levels in prestige classes unless they wish to sacrifice a large portion of their power.

The bottom line is that I think a class represents a more significant portion of a character's identity than the RAW imply. I do not believe a character should be able to alter his basic identity as easily as 3e rules allow. If a fighter has a religious epiphany and vows to serve Heironeous as a paladin for the rest of his days, that is acceptable. But when the paladin with his newfound powers then takes a level of marshal to get a boost to his initiative score, I begin to wonder if his vows were ever as sacrosanct as he made them out to be. Such behavior is grounds for loss of paladinhood AFAIAC. In the paladin's case, it is simple to deny the player the paladin's abilities until he atones and starts actually acting like a paladin again and not using the class for its power. But with a rogue/spellthief/scout/ninja, my task becomes more complicated because there is no mechanism for enforcing roleplaying in such a character. Therefore I opt for an approach that actually limits multiclassing systematically so that changing your identity actually becomes a very difficult thing to do, especially in the case of demihumans.

Prestige classes are not necessary for a concept. I can be a loremaster by putting all my skill points into Knowledge skills and buying Skill Focus (Knowledge) feats. I could be a geomancer by playing a druid. I could be a radiant servant of Pelor by being a cleric of Pelor who spends his resources on tools and skills to overcome undead and heal the sick. The prestige class only comes into play when the player desires a special ability, and such abilities are not necessary to make a concept work. In fact, I think they often complicate the game more than it is worth.

 

[Gabester]

I disagree. It's a two-way street. I don't spend hours upon hours planning a campaign simply to entertain other people.

It is a two way street. That's the point. I know that it's not ENTIRELY about entertaining your players but it is LARGELY about that. If you don't entertain them then what do you have? Why are they there? Just to humor you and be a captive audience for your hobby of creating rule systems? Maybe after the game you'd like them to watch a 4 hour slide show of your vacation to Baja?

If you play with 5 other people then you are just 1/6th of the audience. You get a larger share of the story-making process, sure, and spend more time creating everything but you still don't have anything without the players except a chance to obsess over rules in your spare time.

Maybe your players think you're great. Or maybe they just don't know better. My point is just that maybe you should, you know, TRY ASKING THEM. And let them decide some of these things. And work out a mutual agreement on something like this akin to: you can multiclass as much as you want as long as you keep it corgial and non-powergamish.

Your extreme attention to rules over players indicates to me that you are *that* DM. You know, the guy who is really only there to create obsessive/compulsive rules and force them on players. Don't be that guy. Prove me wrong.

Or, at the very least, to further the discussion here talk to us about why you think that multiclassing really is broken or overpowered. You gave us a barbarian/fighter example but I think it was demonstrated that it wasn't actually overpowered. Or a reason why the simple guideline I gave you doesn't work other than "but I'm way too OCD to actually talk to my players about their character concepts".

Ultimately my point is that it is through having a relationship with your players and talking to them about what THEY want from the story that you can come to mutually constructive rules that make you both happy. You will not cure powergaming by removing the 3e multiclassing -- it is actually pretty balanced using core classes and theres were just as many power gamers in 2e as there are now in 3e. You will really only cure powergaming by talking with your players, helping them figure out how not to powergame, and actively encouragng them and rewarding them for not doing so. It is helpful to use systems that are simple and yet thoroughly playtested. The 3e multiclass rules with the core classes fit this very well (and I'd love to have you tell me how, if you think this is untrue).

 

[Gabester]

In the paladin's case, it is simple to deny the player the paladin's abilities until he atones and starts actually acting like a paladin again and not using the class for its power. But with a rogue/spellthief/scout/ninja, my task becomes more complicated because there is no mechanism for enforcing roleplaying in such a character.

Yes there is! Don't let them take any of those classes without roleplaying. You don't want them to powergame??? Give them a reason to roleplay. If all you can offer them is more rules then they'll never learn -- instead they'll simply adapt their powergaming to the new ruleset. If you make roleplay a challenge that must be overcome before being given access to train as a spellthief, scout or ninja then you are simultaneously:

1) Teaching the player how to roleplay.
2) Vetting the extent to which they can powergame.
3) Creating an in-game story that exactly explains why they are the combination of classes that they have.

 

[airwalkrr]

It is a two way street. That's the point. I know that it's not ENTIRELY about entertaining your players but it is LARGELY about that. If you don't entertain them then what do you have? Why are they there? Just to humor you and be a captive audience for your hobby of creating rule systems? Maybe after the game you'd like them to watch a 4 hour slide show of your vacation to Baja?

I guess I didn't get the point across when I said I was old school. What I mean is, I am a referee DM. My job is twofold: challenge the players and enforce the rules of the game. Whether or not that creates a game that is entertaining for the players is up to them. As I said, I'm all about choice. I encourage them to vote with their feet if they don't like it, but I never have problems finding people who want to play my campaigns.

Maybe your players think you're great. Or maybe they just don't know better. My point is just that maybe you should, you know, TRY ASKING THEM. And let them decide some of these things. And work out a mutual agreement on something like this akin to: you can multiclass as much as you want as long as you keep it corgial and non-powergamish.

I should point out here that once I begin a campaign, I don't change the ruleset I use for that campaign unless absolutely necessary. Usually a rule change only involves restricting one or two items that are problematic if it even comes up at all. And if I do make a change to an existing rule set, I ALWAYS consult my players first. When starting a new campaign however, I outline my house rules ahead of time so the players know what they are getting into. If the idea doesn't sound fun to them, I encourage them to join one of the many other local games around. I'm mature enough to realize that everyone has different tastes, and that is not a bad thing.

Or, at the very least, to further the discussion here talk to us about why you think that multiclassing really is broken or overpowered. You gave us a barbarian/fighter example but I think it was demonstrated that it wasn't actually overpowered.

Seriously? I saw no compelling evidence. But if you want me to lay it out:

Fighter benefits at 5th
- +1 BAB
- 2 skill points
- d10 hp

Barbarian benefits at 1st
- +1 BAB
- +2 Fort
- 4 skill points
- rage 1/day
- fast movement
- d12 hp

They are tied at BAB, but the barbarian offers infinitely more otherwise. Except for the rare roleplaying-focused player who refuses to change his lawful alignment, this is a no-brainer. Even if he didn't get fast movement because he likes to wear heavy armor it would still be a no-brainer. Considering that most fighter builds aim at a prestige class at 6th, they never intended to take a 6th level of fighter anyway, so the argument that the character loses half a bonus feat is irrelevant.

For characters who do not cast spells, multiclassing is usually a better option than not multiclassing. Even in a game without prestige classes, I imagine you would find a lot more fighter/rogue/rangers than rogues or fighters or rangers. Even the cleric or druid would often be multiclassed. One level of monk practically obviates the need for armor for such characters (Wis bonus plus bracers of armor is surprisingly effective and you keep your full movement) and improved grapple never hurt the wild-shaping druid. Bards often multiclass as fighters or rogues to gain more combat potency or inflate their saving throws.

Multiclass characters should be the exception and not the rule, and such a build should involve a true sacrifice, not the opportunity cost of a dead level in another class.

It is helpful to use systems that are simple and yet thoroughly playtested. The 3e multiclass rules with the core classes fit this very well (and I'd love to have you tell me how, if you think this is untrue).[/QUOTE]

Simple? Yes. Playtested? Yes. Balanced with only the core classes? Maybe, but the barbarian/fighter/ranger/rogue or the bard/fighter or the cleric/monk or druid/monk are still broken. Balanced with more than core base classes? No. And I like the alternate base classes. They are a better way of introducing flavor to the world than prestige classes are IMHO. I just do not feel like players should be able to cherry pick at will. The occassional multiclass build is fine, but the only way to ensure it is occassional is to make sure it is not ipso facto always a better option. Since I prefer a world that is internally consistent where the players follow the same rules as the NPCs, I would rather effect such a game by making a blanket rule, rather than letting each player use a "different system."

 

[airwalkrr]

3) Creating an in-game story that exactly explains why they are the combination of classes that they have.

Teaching them to roleplay is fine. My players know how to do that, but I powergame unconsciously without realizing it whenever I am a player and so do they. A system that encourages it like 3e multiclassing is not helpful. An in-game reason for why they change classes is not sufficient when the player subconsciously has a desire to powergame and the decision to multiclass is brought about by that. I could think of an in-game reason to play an 11th level character with one level in all 11 base classes if I thought it would be to my benefit to do so (it isn't, although such a character would have saving throws almost on par with a 20th-level monk).

 

[Gabester]

Fighter benefits at 5th
- +1 BAB
- 2 skill points
- d10 hp

Barbarian benefits at 1st
- +1 BAB
- +2 Fort
- 4 skill points
- rage 1/day
- fast movement
- d12 hp

....

As we said: benefits you forgot to line up for the fighter:

1/2 bonus feat (he'll get a feat next level)
No xp penalty (or still has favored class to use)
.3 reflex save
.3 will save
.6 fortitude save
(those are the average save gains per levelj gained as a fighter, as you'll see it adds up to 1.5 or just half a point below the barbarian and in this case I'd much rather have the reflex and will than just more fortitude)

Half a feat is a lot especially if going for a prestige class down the road. Rage 1/day as a level 1 barbarian is virtually useless. The other stuff adds up more or less with the exception of the fast movement. Don't like that? Simple house rule: just as taking barbarian later doesn't make you illiterate it also doesn't grant fast movement. I never said the 3e rules are perfect or can't use SOME tweaks but they are pretty darn good. Doing straightup 3e with multiclassing will end up granting far more balance than introducing all the crazy broken variants in all the sourcebooks out there.

But I've already said all this. You seem to have your fingers in your ears here.

...

Even in a game without prestige classes, I imagine you would find a lot more fighter/rogue/rangers than rogues or fighters or rangers.

Except you don't. Because if you do the math you'll figure out that multclassing fighter/rogue/ranger just ends up a mess with a lots of bits and no real overall power. What do you want to be? A tank or a straight up fighter? Then frankly you'd have better off with pure fighter. A sneak? Then you'd be better off with straight rogue. Rangers are just fighters with flavor and after 3.0 the benefits for multiclassing with them are very minor.

If you really think I'm wrong -- give me examples and then listen when I point out things like, "yes, but the fighter is essentially getting half a feat for level 5 and you're ignoring that".

One level of monk practically obviates the need for armor for such characters (Wis bonus plus bracers of armor is surprisingly effective and you keep your full movement) and improved grapple never hurt the wild-shaping druid.

Instead of just saying that, let's look at the reality of it. What does a cleric lose by taking a level of monk instead of going straight cleric:

+2/3rds BAB (unless they are taking multiple levels of monk and crippling their spell-casting they are going to get hit by the +0 at level 1)
+1 spellcasting level

A druid loses all that and:

2HD of animal campanions
progression towards wildshape and a bunch of other abilities

What do they gain? Wisdom bonus to AC? Uh, yeah, they can wear armor just fine. Improved Grappling? Uhh, yeah. I think I'll take better animal companions, more wildshapes, better spells and a better BAB. Thanks.

Maybe, but the barbarian/fighter/ranger/rogue or the bard/fighter or the cleric/monk or druid/monk are still broken.

Again, if you'd stop assuming you were right before the conversation started and just layed out some supposedly broken combos with these classes I'd be glad to disabuse you of that notion. The only thing really broken about this you will find is the ability to pick up armor/weapon feats retroactively with a level of fighter and this is just one hole in the rules which is very easily patched. Other than that a bard/fighter is a pretty crappy idea if all you care about is power. Give up spells, give up songs, give up skills ... for a feat, a teeny boost in hps, 1/2 of a saving throw point and a whopping +1/4th BAB? Uh, no thanks. The bard is definitely better off focusing on their core progression. However if you really want to play a martial bard then yes, you can mix in a bit of fighter. But really you might as well mix in several levels because, apart from the poorly written armor/weapon rules you are going to gain similar stuff for continuing to multiclass as fighter and for the same sorts of costs.

 

[Gabester]

Teaching them to roleplay is fine. My players know how to do that, but I powergame unconsciously without realizing it whenever I am a player and so do they. A system that encourages it like 3e multiclassing is not helpful. An in-game reason for why they change classes is not sufficient when the player subconsciously has a desire to powergame and the decision to multiclass is brought about by that. I could think of an in-game reason to play an 11th level character with one level in all 11 base classes if I thought it would be to my benefit to do so (it isn't, although such a character would have saving throws almost on par with a 20th-level monk).

By the way you are wrong about the saving throws. Add it up and you'll see. Over the course of their careers the worst saving throw progressions still grant 1.5 points per level on average which is only slightly below the +2 they get at first level. If you add up the saves from all the base classes you'll get a nice fort save but about the same will/reflex saves that you'd have as a straight monk. Oh yeah, and all your other abilitities WILL BE TOTAL CRAP. Your BAB will be +4 and you won't be able to cast any spells over 1st level.

Anyway, so basically you are psychoanalysing your players and dubbing them unworthy of expressing anything other than core classes.

Except you just said that, for example, paladins are fine because they have builtin roleplay mechanics and it's unclear why you can't add these for anyone who wants to join a new class. You seem to think that all these elite organizations and professions have absolutely no entrance requirements. Why?

And you can always just say "no". That's what you are doing now. You are saying, "no", you can't do anything interesting with multiclassing, you can only use these crappy rules that everyone hated from 2e. You seem to think that saying "no" to something after the campaign has started is a cardinal sin. If a player asks you for a holy avenger +5 at level 1 do you say yes? If they ask if they can take 10 while falling off a cliff do you say yes? If they ask you if they can make a listen check to hear something 10 miles a way do you say yes?

Etc.

Roleplay can ONLY be taught. Not forced through rules. I don't care how much you've psychoanalyzed your players, throwing rules at them to fix their powergaming tendencies will never get you anywhere. Powergamers WERE just as common in 2e. They just powergamed with a different set of rules.

 

[Technik4]

They are tied at BAB, but the barbarian offers infinitely more otherwise.

Infinitely more? I think your own min/max tendencies are at work here, not your hypothetical players. Do you call 2 skill points, the ability to rage once per day, and the dubious benefit of fast movement (given that your previous 4 levels have been Fighter) "infinitely better" than setting yourself up for 2 feats at 6th level? I don't.

The beauty of the 3e ruleset is that there are tangible benefits to multiclassing, beyond just trying to outwardly define yourself through your classes (I'm a fighter/wizard, treat me as such!). Yet as you play a campaign, those early benefits may cost you high-level abilities.

I do not believe a character should be able to alter his basic identity as easily as 3e rules allow.

Then you believe that mechanics determine character identity, not roleplaying. Look, lets say its the first session of a game and no one knows what anyone else is playing (assume the DM is aware of all the characters' skills and classes though). What is everyone's "identity"? If I portray myself as a lightly-armored ranged attacker, then what is my class? You could play with me in a campaign for weeks and not realize that I was 'actually' a ranger (or a fighter, or a rogue). Why should what class I chose determine my identity? The mechanics are just a way to adjucate actions in-game.

If a fighter has a religious epiphany and vows to serve Heironeous as a paladin for the rest of his days, that is acceptable. But when the paladin with his newfound powers then takes a level of marshal to get a boost to his initiative score, I begin to wonder if his vows were ever as sacrosanct as he made them out to be.

What if a paladin chooses to multiclass into the Marshall class to become a better paragon of goodness against undead. Or because he wants to emphasize his leadership abilities within a group? Why should a paladin (especially a demihuman paladin) feel like his future is already cookie-cut for him? We're roleplaying Adventurers, PCs - Not NPCs.

Therefore I opt for an approach that actually limits multiclassing systematically so that changing your identity actually becomes a very difficult thing to do, especially in the case of demihumans.

When someone multiclasses it is not an identity transformation, its learning new skills and abilities. Sometimes, these can mesh very well and sometimes they don't.

I think everyone would agree with your decision more if you were slightly more lenient, ala:

A. "I'm limiting all my players to two classes total - they can have a base class and a prc, or they can multiclass between two base classes, but in any case they can only ever have two classes total. Humans and Half-Elves have the ability to get three total, but they must forgo their next feat in order to multiclass into a third class."

or

B. "In my game I wish to discourage multiclassing to prevent cherry-picking of low-level classes, therefore whenever anyone wishes to multiclass at any point they must consult me and fully roleplay the transition into their new class. This transition will take 1 week which must be spent with at least one member of the class they are transferring into and puts the PC into their trainer (and possibly their trainer's organization's) debt."

Of course I could point out that in RAW 3e there is a mechanic to discourage heavy multiclassing (the Exp penalty, which you seem to overlook in any of your multiclassing analyses) and that B, or some variation, is a common house rule, especially regarding PrCs.

Just because youre an older player doesn't mean you should disregard what you discern as to be an overpowered feature. Have your groups abused multiclassing in the past, or is this just a personal grudge concerning how you like to see D&D played? Or have you just read too many smackdown threads?

 

[dungeondweller]

Not really intending to join in the fracas here, but I thought I'd throw my two pennies in the pot and see how they tinkle...

No Prestige Classes. Perfect. Prestige Classes are a good concept, but in my opinion were rendered badly. IMO, classes like Paladin and Barbarian should be Prestige Classes of the base Fighter architecture. I like the "core four" approach to base classes where everyone starts out as a "Fighter", "Mage", "Priest", or "Rogue" and builds from there. Thus, I'd like the PrC mechanic to work more like the "kit" concept from 2e.

You lost me, however, when talking about going BACK to the horrific 2e rules for multiclassing. Like someone else said, D&D was originally built with a "one character, one class" concept and their multiclassing rules, pre-3e, were just sorta tacked on to the end like a tail on a paper donkey.

I could see limiting the total number of classes one takes to 2 or 3, or even making it based off their Intelligence modifier... But you take a great deal of flexibility away from players by chopping off multiclassing entirely and/or making it more painful to do.

Here's the base truth... I understand the desire to tweak the rules to preference. But you MUST realize that your players have to live with your decisions and they may not be as enamored with your ideas as you are... In twenty-two years as a DM now, the one thing I've learned through the most painful process possible is that players want options and that my ideas don't necessarily inspire them... at all.

PrC's are a rules option, not core. Chop them off if you want to. But don't mess with the core rules on multiclassing.

IMO.

 

[Grayhawk]

Quartz, you and I apparently like different things about 3e. To me, 3e made a marvelous step forward by introducing feats, skills, and standardizing monster abilities. Multiclassing is simply one of the things I find most detestable about 3e. Dwarf barbarian/fighter/ranger/horizon walker/bear warrior is not a character concept, it is a focus on picking up abilities you like from different classes. If that were the point of the game, then why even have classes at all? Everything should be based on feats. You could build the same concept by playing a dwarf barbarian, but players like to have as many abilities as they can get so they multiclass. The players aren't bad for making such a rational decision, but the game design is bad for encouraging that kind of thinking.

No, I like having clearly defined archetypes. Allowing characters to be diverse through skill and feat selection, not to mention magic item selection and ability scores, should be plenty. The mechanics of 3e work much better than they did in previous editions. See grappling, disarming, and any monster special ability. That is the driving philosophy behind this change. 3e combat mechanics and standardizations are good. 3e class system is bad. So keep the combat mechanics and standardizations and go back to the old class system. That's it in a nutshell.

I very much agree with this (especially the parts I bolded).

But I also agree with those advising against going back to AD&D's multi and dualclass rules. One reason is that I don't believe there needs to be different rules for humans and demihumans. Another reason is that I find 3e's multiclassing rules very elegant (they just need some restrictions, IMO).

Some time ago I began reworking the parts of 3x that I don't like (tentatively calling my project 'ED&D' - short for 'Essential Dungeons and Dragons'). The goal is to simplify and streamline the rules, retaining as much 1st AD&D flavor as possible, while keeping 3e's best ideas (IMO, of course).

First off: This is a reworking of the core rules only (part of keeping the game as simple as possible).

Regarding classes: All rewritten to max out at 15th level. Rangers and Paladins are spell less (this seems obvious to me, with the ease of 3e's multiclassing rules. It feels counterintuitive to me that a player that wants a spell less Ranger or Paladin will have to stop progression in his class (possible shifting to Fighter) before the spells are being thrust upon him, thus missing out on the classes other later-level abilities. The logical thing (again, IMO) is to keep those classes spellfree, when you can easily multi with Druid or Cleric for some added spellpower.

And there are no Prestige Classes allowed. Firstly, to keep things simple. Secondly, I don't see the need for them: Even while staying core only and taking my pretty limiting multiclassing rules into consideration, I can't imagine running out of interresting character concepts (or even finding the time to play them all).

airwalkrr, while my goal (and the ways to reach it) may not exactly be what you're looking for, here are my multiclassing rules:

No experience penalty for multiclassing (and no favored classes).

All races may have a maximum of two classes, except Halvelves who may have three.

(In my reworking of the races - and my whitling down of unnecessary elements - I almost scrapped the Halfelf. But instead I though this was a nice nostalgic nod to earlier editions, while giving that race a solid niche.)

No multiclasing between Fighter, Beserker (my reworked Barbarian), Ranger and Paladin.

(While I can easily imagine scenarios where such could make sense (character-wise), I prefer the 'old' way of doing it, as I feel it enforces the character's identity as opposed to tempting players to multi just for the sake of abilities.)

Now, I imagine that rules as strict as these will rub most people here the wrong way, but for more casual players there can be a real beauty in simplicity.

Whether or not you're opposed to those kinds of restrictions also has a lot to do with how you view the whole 'character vs class' thing. If you feel that the abilities of a class are just there to be mined to meet your character concept, you obviously will prefer free multiclassing rules (as well as PrCs) - but then I think you would propably be better off with a class-less system to begin with.

When I (and the people I started playing with 20 years ago) play a class based game, your character is his class, and multiclassing is the exception, not the rule.

YMMV - In fact, it almost certainly will