Any purist class characters? (no multiclassing)

[Olidammara]

Now that we've waded through the first year or so of the new d20 prestige class concept, I've started appreciating the simple combinations of core classes to define a character (and avoid potential arguments about "unbalanced" supplements). A perfectly fine duelist, for example, can be crafted with a rogue-fighter combo, nothing more.

And then I started wondering how many pure, single-class characters are being played. So my question to you is just that: Any 20th level rogues or 20th level fighters or single-class whatnots out there? How common are they?

 

[Garmorn]

I have a 15th level wizard in one campain. Over all I prefer single class characters to multiclass most of the time.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I have a 15th level wizard in one campain. Over all I prefer single class characters to multiclass most of the time.

My wizard is 20th. If you are going to cast spells you ought to stick with one class. Moreover the non-fighting classes should avoid getting a non-fighting PrC or their BAB will be ludicrous. (Which of course is no poblem if you intend to avoid direct combat).

Fighters on the other hand can benefit a lot from multi-classing in to other fighters or even other classes after 12th level. Mostly because they will already have the feats they need and stand to gain neat stuff such as fast movement and sneak attack. Additionally at higher levels a fighter usually has BAB to spare. (BAB increases with level but AC does not.)

 

[kengar]

I have a 12th level Sorcerer and a 15th level Paladin. No plans to multiclass either of of them. I do have a Rogue/Illusionist that I like playing, though (he's only Rog4/Wiz3 right now, but would probably end up 13/7). I like how 3e has handled multiclassing, it makes a lot more sense to me than older rules. As a rule, though, I am not a big fan of the Prestige Classes. Very few of those I've read were much more than "one trick ponies" or hopelessly unbalanced. At least, that's my impression.

 

[Fictionaut]

Both characters I have played in 3E have been single-classed psions, one up to 22nd and the other currently at 10th. I've done so for the reasons already discussed that spellcasters should stay single-classed, though I thought about an Egoist with one level of fighter.

It really depends on the nature of the campaign, how feasible single-class characters are (Some PrCs might as well be single-classed; there's not a huge functional difference between a Wizard 20 and a Wiz/Loremaster 10/10. Still, that's not the point of the thread). If the party works as a cohesive group, single-class types are great; the iconic fighter/wizard/rogue/cleric party can tear through just about anything at high levels. If, on the other hand, you can't trust the group all the time (in my current party, the LN cleric keeps trying to negotiate payment for healing spells cast), multiclass types who can do a bit of everything seem to offer a far greater chance for survival.

 

[Wicht]

My first 3e campaign had no multiclassing and ended with all the characters over 10th level.

In my current campaign, the characters are at 4th level but show no indications of going after other classes than their original.

 

[Psion]

And then I started wondering how many pure, single-class characters are being played. So my question to you is just that: Any 20th level rogues or 20th level fighters or single-class whatnots out there? How common are they?

The campaign I am running right now is at about 16th-17th level. Of a party of 5 normal players, only one has a PC with more than one class - a ranger/ghostwalker. The rest are all single classed (a rogue, a paladin, a sorcerer, and a monk.) The core classes really are playable as is. In fact, I think it takes a little deeper thought to make a multi-class character that is playable.

 

[Mahiro Satsu]

For some classes I think that multiclassing is a good idea. Like a wizard multiclassing into Archmage. Other times its not such a great idea. Any classes that still gain special abilities beyond 10th level, for instance, would not benifit from adding another class. For others mulitclassing into a prestige class is a way to develope character. In all i am nuetral to multiclassing. I think that it can be fun, but not manditory.

 

[Olidammara]

Yes.
Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying. I sense your meaning. I grok you.

It doesn't address the original question here, but what the heck. Blather on.

 

[Crothian]

I've got a 6th level Ranger and a 5th level cleric. Actually in both those campaigns we are all of about the same level and one one person has multi classed out of 12 characters.