Player's build is to strong?

[MoonZar]

Shh, don't remind Wizards, that might cut down the sale of their books ...


Seriously, I think that prestiege classes (and even regular classes) need to fit a roleplaying idea before a mechanical one. If you can explain this, then perhaps, but it sounds like 2 of those classes are directly opposed to each other.

If you can explain why your character did it, I don't see why you couldn't take 20 different classes for an L20 character (Good luck). More likely, a dabler character might take a few different base classes, and then settle into a flexably diverse Prc (I'm sure they're out there) or which ever base class ends up suiting them more.

Generaly, I like to look at any PrC, and ask "Is this class significantly more capable than a base class?" There are quite a few out there, and I tend to me more strict about them. Of course, since we haven't done too much outside of the SRD core books as far as PC's go we tend not to have many issues where this is a problem.

hehehe i guess without the prestige class the wizard book will be much smaller. This just weird, they say to lower the prestige class as much possible in campaign and they publish so many of them just to make money. Personnaly i think the more prestige class they do, the more risk you have to unbalance the game.

Prestige class are all stronger then the core class, that why many people take 4-5 prestige class if the dm don't control the situation. If all the people in the group take at least one prestige class and you don't, you'll see a difference in term of power. If you don't take prestige class and your friend take 3-4 prestige class to overpower, you just have to sit and watch when combat happen, because the monster will be very dangerous to give some challenge to the prestige class monger...

Anyway if everybody in one groupe play prestige class monger, why not, as someone told me before everybody have it way to play the game. The thing i don't like is when one player in the group abuse and the other people try to have descent and normal character.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'd also seriously consider saying PrC's are not immune to multiclass XP penalties.

Worst. Idea. Evar.

 

[Thanee]

Worst. Idea. Evar.

We actually play it like that. Not as bad as one might think.

It gives favored classes a lot more impact (as opposed to about none as normally), for example.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Darkness]

On a side note, is there any way the thread could be renamed? Maybe "Player's character is too strong" would work?

Why? The current thread title is slightly more precise.

 

[Arnwyn]

Would you allow this character in your game?

Nope, certainly not. It wouldn't make sense in my game.

 

[KarinsDad]

A good general rule is to limit PCs to a total of three classes (including Prestige Classes).

Exceptions can be made, if the background concept calls for it (DM decision).

I don't have a problem with more than 3 classes. I have a problem with taking only one or two levels of a Prestige Class and front loading.

We have a house rule of a minimum of 3 levels of a Prestige Class (once you take a PrC) before you can take another new class (normal or prestige). You can switch back and forth between earlier classes and the PrC, but you cannot take any new class until you get the minimum 3 levels in your PrC.

 

[Thanee]

I don't have a problem with more than 3 classes. I have a problem with taking only one or two levels of a Prestige Class and front loading.

Yep, but that is often correlative. It's just a rule of thumb and no hard rule, therefore the exception comes directly with it, but I think it's a good rule of thumb for multiclassing, not to go higher than 3 classes, unless it's really, really necessary for the character concept (and not in a min/maxing way).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Mr. Kaze]

As a player, I hate people who build characters like this for one leading reason:

he is starting at third level.

Used to play in a game where one characters incessant mantra was "Just X more levels and I'll be sooooo cooool" every single time he was utterly useless in the current situation. Which was always. I lost ~15% of my XP to that leechy b@$t@rd and never saw him do anything uniquely worthwile. (Druid/Monk mix for shapeshifting, cept that we already had another full Druid in the party, no full fighters, and most of the game we were too low-level for him to shapeshift at all.)

Similarly, DM'd a guy building for "True Necromancer (v3.0)" that routinely missed out on all but the last round of combat because he was too busy casting buffing spells on himself while the Ogre, Half-Dragon, and wildly multiclassed fighter/thief/etc were laying waste to the battlefield. They really started resenting losing 25% of their XP to a guy that was barely even there.

So regardless of whether the build is legal or not (looks like it isn't due to evasion, not to mention RP issues with Ur-Priests), I wouldn't want to play play with it as a player at level 3 so I'd have to advise a DM against letting it tax the other players in the game. It's not going to be "sooooo cooool" -- it's going to be sooooo annoying.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

We actually play it like that. Not as bad as one might think.

Yes, I can see how an elven Fighter / Wizard moving into duelist, bladesinger, or arcane archer should suffer an experience penalty.

 

[Thanee]

Why not? They have enough time to learn...

Bye
Thanee