No Prestige Classes

[airwalkrr]

I know that technically this is just a DM preference and not a house rule, but my basic premise involves a few more steps. I want to encourage players to adopt archetypes based on their character class. D&D is a class-based system, and the vast multiclass/prestige class options and loose restrictions on such waters this basis down IMHO. However, I do wish to give my players maximum ability to customize their class through spell, feat, and skill selection.

My idea has two main parts:

1) No prestige classes are allowed. Because of this, PCs have no reason to take feats simply as prerequisites, they have less to think about when planning their characters, and the introduction of new rules to the campaign (in the way of class abilities anyway) is limited, making my job as a DM that much easier.

2) Use AD&D multiclass/dual class rules. This helps reinforce class-based archetypes, which is one of a few things that I think AD&D accomplished superbly well (much better than 3e has). Only humans could be switching classes and demihumans could start out in multiple classes at 1st, but would have to remain multiclassed (and maybe have level-limits, but probably not). For demihuman multiclassing, I would simply use gestalt rules and award half XP. By my calculations, this would leave them between 2-3 levels behind most of the time, which seems fair. For human dual classing, I would use the rule for prime requisites as a requirement for a new class.

In addition to these two main rules, I would be lax about allowing new feats, new spells, new skill tricks, and the like. I feel that if you toss prestige classes out of the mix and restrict multiclassing, the game will have some of the better hallmarks of 3e's customization aspects, without some of the watered down class build problems that I often see plague 3e.

 

[Technik4]

I like the way you think, but I think its too far.

First, Prestige Classes are a great way to complete a character concept. Along with base classes, prcs allow for a high-degree of customization. My house rule would be:

*1* Prestige Class per character, period.

I find that most of the broken things ppl find in 3.x are from multiple prestige classes stacking to do things you couldn't do with the base classes (Ur-Priest is a big offender). Also, their entire character BECOMES the class configuration, rather than the class configuration being a projection of the character.

As far as multiclassing I think 3.x is beautiful, far more fair than 2e (which also had differing Exp tables, racial level-caps, and restricted classes from certain races). It does have hiccups with certain combinations, but as I was commenting to a friend the other day, fighter and rogue mix perfectly under 3e (unlike 2e).

 

[Quartz]

Umm.. one of the main ideas behind d20 is multiclassing. Want skills? Take levels in Rogue or Ranger. Want feats? Take levels in Fighter. Want good saves? Take levels in Monk.

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

 

[Presto2112]

I like the way you think, but I think its too far.

First, Prestige Classes are a great way to complete a character concept. Along with base classes, prcs allow for a high-degree of customization. My house rule would be:

*1* Prestige Class per character, period.

I do this as well (well, I WILL be doing this, once the PCs come within the range of being able to obtain PrCs). However, that won't be so much a house rule as how the game world works. I told my players right up front that Prestige Classes will not be just something their players can simply take levels in and go about their way. Each Prestige Class will be an actual organization that the PCs either have to petition to join, or they have to be invited into.

Behind the scenes, I'll be regularly monitoring PCs level progression. If I see that they're progressing toward an interesting PrC, I may set up an encounter with a member of that PrC and RP him or her as showing interest in a certain PCs promise. However, I left the gave wide open for PrCs as well, and they just may throw me a curve ball and ask if there is an organization like a certain PrC in the region, and inquire into becominging involved in it via tasking levels in the PrC.

Such opportunities will be quite rare on my game world, and as such, it will b very unlikely that PCs will even be ABLE to join more than one PrC.

 

[Quartz]

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

I think you're going a little far there. But consider how you'd build a Special Forces guy in d20: you'd have levels of fighter to represent his combat prowess and levels of rogue to represent his skills in stealthiness. You might also have some levels of monk to represent inner discipline and ability in unarmed combat. Bingo! Multiclassing. Now, you are quite right that you can get some serious cheese when cherry-picking prestige classes, but the title of the thread is 'No Prestige Classes', isn't it? And just because a prestige class has been written up doesn't mean that it's suitable for or available in your campaign.

As an example, take a look at this character I created. 10th level Barbarian 2 / Monk 2 / Fighter 6 (not necessarily in that order!), no prestige classes. Decent in a bar-room brawl, decent in full combat.

 

[airwalkrr]

As an example, take a look at this character I created. 10th level Barbarian 2 / Monk 2 / Fighter 6 (not necessarily in that order!), no prestige classes. Decent in a bar-room brawl, decent in full combat.

That just helps demonstrate my point that prestige classes are not necessary. Additionally, that character would work just as well as a barbarian 10, monk 10, or fighter 10 by developing him through his feats and skill selections, not to mention how you roleplay him.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think you're going a little far there. But consider how you'd build a Special Forces guy in d20: you'd have levels of fighter to represent his combat prowess and levels of rogue to represent his skills in stealthiness. You might also have some levels of monk to represent inner discipline and ability in unarmed combat.

Multiclassing is unnecessary. If you want to build a special forces character, you can easily do so within the framework of a single class. A fighter with able learner and ranks in hide and move silently would be stealthy. You don't need a class to represent disciple. And the improved unarmed strike feat represents ability in unarmed combat just fine. A rogue could do this role just as well through feats and skills and would simply be a bit less potent in battle, but a few combat-oriented feats would round the character out. Same with the monk.

 

[Gabester]

I played plenty of AD&D and I too think you're taking a big step backwards. AD&D multiclassing made no sense at all. It was just a big hackish mess of rules that we slogged through because that's what we had but that never really brought out any good gameplay.

In general multi-classing in 3e is superb for expressing different character concepts. Some examples:

1) A rogue with an inherent supernatural background. Takes 2 levels of sorcer and the rest in rogue. This allows them to have a few supernatural abilities (in this case it was stuff like feather fall, and expeditious retreat) and certainly doesn't overpower them.

2) A barbarian that becomes increasingly spiritual and takes on a druid class after 3 levels. This creates a druid that will be a bit stronger in combat but is going to always be significantly behind the curve spellwise.

3) A martial ranger. Instead of focusing entirely on ranger, they take a few levels in fighter to increase their access to combat feats (but at a cost to how they advance ranger abilities such as their animal companion).

4) Any of literally hundreds or thousands of character concepts that dovetail nicely into any of the many well-balanced prestige classes.

If your players are cheezing their way through the system then I think it's your players that are broken -- not the rules. If it's not multiclass rules that they are munchkins with it will be something else. If you still want to encourage them away from the cheez there are a lot of house rules that will help you do this without losing the versatility of 3e and going back to the monstrosity that is AD&D. Some rules from my campaign:

1) Carefully pick the prestige classes you allow in your campaign.
2) Make a house rule that your first class always has to be your highest level class unless there is a strong, well roleplayed reason for a change.
3) Don't allow players to pick up feats such as martial weapon proficiencies on a class if they take it after 1st level.
4) Require players to actively roleplay and partake in the activities the organizations which suppor their classes in order to continue to level in them.

...

In the end I suspect it's nostalgia and fear of change more than anything that leads this decision-making process. But whatever, I'm probably wrong.

 

[Gabester]

Multiclassing is unnecessary. If you want to build a special forces character, you can easily do so within the framework of a single class. A fighter with able learner and ranks in hide and move silently would be stealthy. You don't need a class to represent disciple. And the improved unarmed strike feat represents ability in unarmed combat just fine. A rogue could do this role just as well through feats and skills and would simply be a bit less potent in battle, but a few combat-oriented feats would round the character out. Same with the monk.

Except most of that stuff won't work or won't work well. For example, hide and sneak aren't class skills for a fighter and so, even if your fighter has an 18 int, he's going to be hard-pressed to have commando skills. Your rogue taking feats to be a rogue/monk would end up very unfocused and underpowered because they won't have enough feats to go around. There are certain archetypes that can be captured well with a few feats and a lot that can't. How is someone to create a character like an Arcane Archer with feats? Like a Shifter? A Geomancer? Etc.

For a control-freak DM, all this multiclassing can be a bit tough. But it's not really for you anyway. It's for your players. It gives them so much more freedom to express and create interesting characters and frees them from the abomination that was AD&D's multiclassing rules.