D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5]Montes view: PrClasses?????

[Henry]

It ain't there yet, but let's avoid any hostile-looking stuff, please.

And I'm aware of Sean's statement - my comments were in regard to other posters talking about removing the base class XP penalty, which I prefer is kept.

But there is one thing - it hasn't been officially acknowledged as an error by WotC yet. It probably will, but until they start an errata page, it still "says what it says."

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

...it still "says what it says."

Well, the problem I see is people jumping to conclusions. The fact is, Monte didn't say it SAID there were PrC XP penalties. He said that the line that said the penalty wasn't there was GONE...not that a new line was added.

So it doesn't say you DON'T get XP penalties...BUT, it doesn't say you DO. This could go either way, but its really a pointless argument...wait...so are ALL Revision arguments...on BOTH sides.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

So it doesn't say you DON'T get XP penalties...BUT, it doesn't say you DO. This could go either way, but its really a pointless argument...wait...so are ALL Revision arguments...on BOTH sides.

The rules say you get a penalty for multiclassing. If there's no exception for PrC's, they also get the penalty.

But I prefer to follow the rules as they're meant, not as they're written.

 

[James McMurray]

That stops the interesting fighter/ranger/gladiator/weapon master. There are some characters who want to focus on multiple aspects over time, such as the caster who takes a summoning PrC and Archmage.

Your assertion was not "stops power-gaming, allows EK, and also allows "interesting" characters with multiple prestige classes. I met your original assertion.

If you'd like a house rule that allows all of those, here you go:

All multi-classing must be approved by the DM.

Simple, to-the-point, and allows the things we want while disallowing those we don't.

 

[Mearlin]

To me prestige classes have always been a coninuation of a character's specialty, ie a sneaky rogue becomes an assassin. A fighter could always become an assassin, but they have to be at least a good of rogue as the rogue (skills, etc...) meaning he's probably a higher level and thus more skilled in general. It's easier for a rogue to be an assassin. The idea being that it's not hard for a rogue to keep up her rogue skills while being an assassin, because they come into regular use. A fighter likewise would still use most of his core abilities.

Multiclassing, however is focusing on a completely different discipline, and therefore to be a fighter/barbarian/ranger, you have to focus on maintaining your tracking skills, your precision fighting skills, and your wild rage skills. That's what the XP penalty represents and that's why I wouldn't impose it on prestige classes. Of course, there are exceptions, and certain times where I would impose penalties (such as a wizard/weapons master/gladiator or something similar.)

 

[LokiDR]

Your assertion was not "stops power-gaming, allows EK, and also allows "interesting" characters with multiple prestige classes. I met your original assertion.

If you'd like a house rule that allows all of those, here you go:

All multi-classing must be approved by the DM.

Simple, to-the-point, and allows the things we want while disallowing those we don't.

You met the original assertion in letter only. The idea was to curtail powergaming and not curtail a person following concept. As for you house rule, that is fine but doen't help. Any rule, no matter how bad, can be worked around by a good group. That doesn't make the rule good, however.

 

[James McMurray]

I fail to see how a rule requiring DM approval on all multi-classing doesn't help, but perhaps your DM isn't a good judge of power levels or something. If that is the case, don't worry, he'll get better at it as he gains experience.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That stops the interesting fighter/ranger/gladiator/weapon master. There are some characters who want to focus on multiple aspects over time, such as the caster who takes a summoning PrC and Archmage.

How is this interesting? The character could just ... not take weapon master.

 

[LokiDR]

How is this interesting? The character could just ... not take weapon master.

The character took ranger thinking of going into tempest. He took gladiator because he was feinting a lot in conbat. He went to weapon master because the audience based parts of gladiator didn't suit him. There was actually a background based PrC after that. The character spent a lot of his time trying to find himself. I seem to recall Elmininster went through a number of classes himself. Is Elminster not an interesting character?

 

[James McMurray]

Some would call him a power-gamer Others don't find anything so consistantly used as Deus ex Machina to be interesting.