Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 2790041" data-attributes="member: 3051">Okay, let's keep something straight.  The rules clearly allow for both multiclassing and multiple PrCs, except for some classes that have separate restrictions (Monk and Paladin being the obvious core ones).  Some people want to change this.  That's fine, but there are two reasons given:1> "Power".  So far, I haven't seen any examples of balance-breaking combos given that wouldn't be ruled out by a little DM oversight or the simple BAB/save fixes suggested earlier.  Yes, multiclassing can get you some massive saves, and front-loaded class abilities make it even better.  In my last campaign, I had an evil NPC who exemplified this (Halfling Weretiger, with levels in Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Assassin, Dragon Disciple, and ShadowDancer, with no more than 2 levels in any class).  I called him "Tattoo", and yes, he was pretty impressive before the BAB/Save fix, but once that was done, he was only mediocre.  Getting all those front-loaded abilities was nice, but it meant that he couldn't ever reach the high-end class abilties, even before the issue of Epic classes came up.2> "Theme".  If you're arguing it purely from a thematic point of view, then you'll just need to accept that there are plenty of people who disagree with you, and that since the rules as written allow multiclassing and multiple PrCs, you'll have an uphill battle.  This discussion has come up plenty of times before, and as others have said, part of it is the perception that the only way to be a "Paladin" is to take the Paladin class.  In a more free-form system (like d20Modern) this wouldn't be such an issue, but in an effort to give the core classes a little bit of flavor and tie them to the sacred cows of older editions, they've unfortunately reinforced this perception for many people.And I see nothing wrong with a player who wants to sacrifice more to specialize in a couple different areas, or who wants to split his "specialization" evenly between two different aspects, assuming the rules allow for this (which they do).  As long as the total power of the character doesn't increase dramatically, then it only improves the game as a whole to have the added flexibility.  If I can take class A to increase my wildshaping at the cost of spellcasting, or I can take class B to increase my nature abilities at the cost of spellcasting, why is it okay to take 10 levels of A or 10 of B but not 5/5?  If I want to be just a little bit better at wildshaping, are my only options to go all the way with 10 levels or go without, with nothing in between?  It's like saying that I can be a Barbarian 10 or a Fighter 10 but never a 5/5, because that's not following a single theme.And why are those ones in the DMG?  Because they're some of the simplest, most straightforward, least campaign-specific PrCs available.  Again, though, it's a circular argument.  You could just as easily take some of the Harper PrCs, strip out the organization-related part of the text, and it'd be just as viable.  In fact, if you played the NWN expansions, that's exactly what they did!  The world didn't end just because the Harper Scout PrC was available without the roleplay aspects of the Harpers.Now, this isn't to say that PrCs should always exist without an organization.  Most DO center around a certain concept of training or advancement.  But, you're ignoring the fact that many (if not most) organizations have multiple PrCs.  If the organizational side was the only reason why you don't allow mixing of PrCs, why can't I mix two Harper PrCs?  And if I'm running my own campaign world (i.e., not using the one established in each splatbook), why can't my organization be one that has classes very similar to each PrC, even if in their original books they came from different groups?  For instance, IMC one of the key organizations is a guild (made mostly of Psions and Clerics) who have effectively siezed control of the economy; as one side effect of this, most mercenary contracts are handled through their guild.  So, there's plenty of room there for a wide variety of different PrCs, and no thematic reason why they can't be mixed.Way to go, start calling names.  Even ignoring the fact that I'm a card-carrying member of the Church of Munchkin (which I am) or that one of my favorite card games is Munchkin (which it is), writing off any opinions that disagree with your rule change as munchkinism is just depressingly immature.  And just because your specific group of players don't complain doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with your suggested rule change; I knew a guy back in AD&D games who ran a campaign where everyone was ~100th level, all hit dice were d30s, and you rolled a d30 for each magic item to determine its plus.  His players were happy, but that doesn't mean it worked well in the long run.Here, I'll spell it out.  I'll make a Paladin; let's call him "Malachite".  He goes 7 levels as a straight Paladin, then enters the Hunter of the Dead PrC after an encounter with a Wight.  Well, ten levels later, he's now 17.  The game gives him three options:1> Take three more levels of core Paladin.  This actually puts him slightly behind the rest of the party in terms of power, simply because while they're gaining the benefits of class levels 18-20 (or their PrC equivalents), he's effectively back at 8-10.  In some classes, like Fighter, that's irrelevant, but for ones whose power scales up (like anyone with a bit of spellcasting who took a non-casting PrC, or one with predefined spell advancement), it's a substantial difference.2> Add a second Prestige class (or a racial paragon class).  In Malachite's case, he was touched by the avatar of his god around level 16, and so qualified for a second prestige class, one he wasn't eligible for back at level 7.3> Add a second core class, assuming you haven't ruled this one out as well.  Powerwise this might not be so bad (since many core classes are front-loaded), but unless he's a human or the second class is Favored, he's now forced into a 20% XP penalty.  And thematically, it's even more objectionable; unlike option #2, he's now gaining levels outside the Paladin theme entirely, instead of just effectively mixing specializations. So, by ruling out #2, you've made things substantially worse for many players.  They lose power, or they lose XP, or they lose their theme.  More importantly, they're forced to decide the theme of their character early on, with no possibility for change, and no way to avoid the pigeonholed archetypes defined by a single core class and a single PrC.No I didn't, and if you'd linked this to the next paragraph, you'd see why not.  There ARE balance issues with some PrCs, simply because of the lack of quality control.  Some are too easy to get into, some give too much power.  And yet, allowing multiple PrCs doesn't break things any more than the original PrCs did; the power issue was a function of the PrC as a whole, NOT the ability to mix and match.  PrCs, in general, are LESS abuseable than core classes, because they're less front-loaded and tend to have entrance requirements, but the possibility is still there, especially with some of the badly-written PrCs you see in the splatbooks.  If a DM allows any PrC as written, then he faces these balance issues regardless of how many PrCs a player can mix, so part of your job as DM is to vette classes for balance purposes.  Which, again, means that as long as you're willing to put in even a little effort checking for balance, the only complaint about multiple PrCs is thematic.There is no conflict with the players, because Rule 0 always decides ties.  If the player wants a PrC, and the DM thinks it's too powerful, it's the player's responsibility to suggest changes that'd make it more palatable.  As long as the player isn't trying to abuse the system for a substantial gain in power, they'll be willing to compromise, and if they ARE trying to abuse it, I don't have much sympathy.  Also, this sets a precedent; if a couple levels down the road it begins to appear that the PrC really WAS unbalanced, the player will be more open to the necessary re-negotiation.  Besides, this works both ways; if you want something similar to an existing PrC, but that adds in a couple extra abilities, the DM will be just as willing to help balance the new class.  One character IMC wanted to play something similar to the Dwarven Defender, but for his Halfling, so we worked out a version of it that favored dexterity over constitution a bit.And just because your rule is "logical" doesn't make it either good or balanced.  Take, as an example, the old rules for costs of custom items in the 3E DMG.  It's been said many, many times that those rules were simply guidelines, that it was ultimately the DM's job to decide how much an item would cost based on its overall utility; that even though the book said you could get an item of unlimited cure light wounds, that it should never cost only 1800-2000gp.  Even after 3.5E reworked the price structure, this issue still remains.  So, again, it's ultimately the DM's decision as to whether something is balanced or not, and no amount of "logic" will ever remove the need for this.</blockquote>

Verification