No Prestige Classes

[airwalkrr]

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.

Sure, nostalgia plays a part. But let me explain something. I thought 3e multiclassing was great at first too, until I spent six and a half years seeing how much it discourages archetypes, which I have found is good for roleplaying. Calvin the paladin has a much stronger identity if he has 15 levels of paladin than if he has two levels of paladin, two levels of fighter, one level of marshal and 10 levels taken from various prestige classes. He's now a fighter/paladin/marshal/knight of the chalice/justiciar/kensai/whatever. That is not an archetype, nor does it facilitate building a character identity. It just facilitates a "gotta catch 'em all" philosophy regarding prestige classes.

Now the examples you list are easily done with the proposed system. A rogue with a bit of magical power could be a human sorcerer who takes a second class as a rogue, or a just an elf or half-elf rogue/wizard. A barbarian who becomes spiritual could be a human barbarian who takes a second class as a druid. A martial ranger could be a fighter for a while and then become a ranger. Or he could just be a ranger with feats to emphasize combat as opposed to tracking, sneaking, or the like.

Now I could solve all these problems by re-writing the entire game to make taking 20 levels of fighter just as attractive as multiclassing and taking several prestige classes, but frankly, I don't have time. I AM currently working on re-writing the base classes (which you can see in recent articles on this forum), but that is a work in progress that is slow in developing. However, if I just use a simple rule like this, then that obviates the need to redesign the entire system and I am only cutting out a small part really. Saying no to prestige classes does not ruin the game, and limiting multiclassing doesn't change the classes themselves. Prestige classes make up perhaps 10% of the sourcebook material available. It is not a huge loss.

 

[Gabester]

Sure, nostalgia plays a part. But let me explain something. I thought 3e multiclassing was great at first too, until I spent six and a half years seeing how much it discourages archetypes, which I have found is good for roleplaying.

Well that at least pinpoints our central point of disagreement. I'm not the least bit interested in archetypes and I don't think that they are required for getting people to roleplay. I think they are required for getting people to roleplay in predictable/archetypical ways. And I think your players will thank you if you let them have a bit more freedom just to express their own, non-archetypical characters.

A level 15 paladin knows how to roleplay easily because it tells him exactly wat alignment he has to be and what he has to do and he can just rely on the vanilla descripter in the player's handbook. Sure, fine, ok. And yes, a halfling rogue with a few levels of sorceror to get some spells like feather fall and a familiar has no predefined roleplay role. But, in the case of that character, he had a great backstory about a family that had been haunted by cats for several generations. And in the end, he was a far, far stronger character than any single-classed "archetype".

A rogue with a bit of magical power could be a human sorcerer who takes a second class as a rogue, or a just an elf or half-elf rogue/wizard

Except he couldn't be. He couldn't take a second class as rogue, for example, because he started as a rogue (because otherwise his skills would have been screwed and in fact they shouldn't be because he is really just a rogue with a splash of sorceror). Also he was a halfling which is a bit of a problem. And sure, he could multi-class according to old rules, but no, that doesn't make sense either because he doesn't want to cast high level spells some day. He just wants be a rogue who just happens to have a few "talents" and a strange cat that follows him around and 3.x lets him do that.

...

3.x gives you a lot of flexibility. It's up to you as a DM to use that and to let your players use it. I think that's fundamentally where your fix is going to be. Why doesn't simply telling players that they have to get approval for any multiclassing in advance solve all your problems? You're the DM, you can do things like that.

Getting rid of that flexibility and replacing it with an inherently nonsensical system seems like a lousy idea. Please, please, please tell me why non-human characters have to dual class in a completely different way than humans? Please, please, please tell me why I have to forget completely about my fighting skills while learning to be a mage until I match levels?

It doesn't. Make. Sense. And your player's won't thank you for it given that there's a clearly superior system available now.

If the flexibility of the 3.x system is too much for you to personally handle then I suggest you just talk to your players and tell them what you have in mind. If they can't roleplay well unless they are given a purely archetypical character then ... well ... I think you have bigger problems than 3.x.

 

[airwalkrr]

He just wants be a rogue who just happens to have a few "talents" and a strange cat that follows him around and 3.x lets him do that.

There are a number of feats in complete arcane that give a character several spell-like abilities. I would have very few issues with letting a character custom-design one along similar lines.

Also he was a halfling which is a bit of a problem.

Yes, that certainly is a bit of a problem, especially since, IMC, I don't think halflings should be wizards. I like running Tolkienesque campaigns so a halfling sorcerer is right out anyway. Now if I were running a campaign world designed for 3e, like Eberron, it might not be a problem. But if you want to run Mystara, Greyhawk, or the Forgotten Realms, I have always found it odd that suddenly, one day, dwarves and halflings the world round developed a talent for arcane magic. I apologize if that attitude rubs you the wrong way, but that was part of the flavor of these campaign settings, and I like preserving flavor.

Why doesn't simply telling players that they have to get approval for any multiclassing in advance solve all your problems?

Because it is much easier to simply have guidelines in advance.

Please, please, please tell me why non-human characters have to dual class in a completely different way than humans?

Non-humans are not capable of learning new skills after a certain point. One of humanity's strengths is its adaptability. A human can pick up a new set of skills later in life because they retain the ability to learn completely new skills until they die. Although non-humans are rational, intelligent creatures, they are only capable of learning new skills while in their youth. It's a perfectly rational concept if you simply consider it an extreme of a common human phenomenon: the fact that children learn things more quickly than adults. In the case of non-humans, adults simply become less adaptable than human adults. You can't teach an old dog new tricks in other words.

Please, please, please tell me why I have to forget completely about my fighting skills while learning to be a mage until I match levels?

Actually you don't. This is a common misconception about AD&D dual-classing. The problem is, if you are relying on your fighting skills, you aren't learning anything about using magic. Until your skill with magic surpasses your relative ability with fighting, you need to concentrate on your magic to the exclusivity of fighting. AD&D allowed you to use the abilities of your old class, but you lost experience for that encounter, sometimes even that adventure, depending on the circumstances/DM.

If they can't roleplay well unless they are given a purely archetypical character then ... well ... I think you have bigger problems than 3.x.

You see, the fact is 3e doesn't have purely archetypal characters any more. That's a good thing, but there is such a thing as too many options. 3e has more than just a non-weapon proficiency system like 2e had. 3e has feats and skills, not to mention other options like variant class abilities, racial substitution levels, skill tricks, and so on. Using these alone, you would be hard-pressed to find a character concept you could not design. Sure, your fighter might not be as good at hiding as the rogue, but perhaps you should have played a ranger and sacrificed some of your bonus feats and hp for such skill. Not to mention the large number of base classes that are around.

 

[Gabester]

Because it is much easier to simply have guidelines in advance.

I have offerred a guideline: all class choices after your original must be approved by the DM.

One, simple guideline. Players can think about their characters at creation time and run any likely multiclassing through you. And then, later, if they get a different idea then they aren't stuck in the AD&D Multiclassing Rules from Hell and they can just ask if you that idea is ok or not and you can allow it or not.

That is so much easier than having to write feats to allow players to integrate slightly non-archetypical bits into their character. If a player wants to add some sorceror to integrate a spell-like ability into their character they ask you and you either allow it or you don't.

IMC, I don't think halflings should be wizards.

Except he wasn't a wizard. He was a halfling whose family was haunted by and aided by cat spirits. That made sense far more than adding feats would (for example: how is the character going to take the two-weapon fighting feats he needs for the rest of his character concept if he's stuck wasting feats trying to get around the multiclassing rules).

Really all you are saying here is that, yes, you only think of classes in terms of certain, very strict archetypes. If someone has a level of Wizard then they ARE a wizard and have to act like one. Apparently, anyway. I get that. I understand that. And it's fine and we just disagree on that point. In my campaign, having a level of something just means you have the abilities and those abilities and it's all good as long as there is an in-setting explanation for why you have those abilities (like a halfling whose family is haunted with / aided by cat spirits). However, I would suggest that, if you want to let your players have fun too (i.e. you don't want to railroad them into playing only the roles you are comfortable with), that you might let them play with the system as it is and simply pre-approve their character concepts.

Non-humans are not capable of learning new skills after a certain point.

Yes, I read all the same books as you. And no, it didn't make sense. I can read it. I can recite it. And it is still poppycock. Apparently after 50 years of life, Elrond never learned anything new anymore. No elves ever change jobs. If a dwarven merchant loses his shop, I'm sorry, but it's too late for him to pick up a hammer and learn to mine. I guess he just goes to the old dwarves home.

Anyway, yeah, if you really dig it then great. I'm just saying that your players may not be quite as nostalgic as you. The world of D&D players pretty much collectively breathed a sigh of relief when those crazy, nonsensical rules went out and something that made sense and allowed some interesting character customization showed up in its place.

Yourself excepted, I guess.

 

[Gabester]

And FWIW, I do understand AD&D dual classing. I'm not sure how my comments were inconsistent with what you have to say about them. You have to forget about your training as a fighter anytime you want to learn anything about magic (i.e. you won't get xps for the encounter if you bother to remember how to use a sword during it).

They still make no sense. Learning something new is almost impossible to do without using the skills you already have from past experiences. In fantasy writing, a warrior learning to use magic wouldn't put down his sword. In fact, it would make a lot of sense to talk about him learning to use the magic with metaphors that relate to his combat training (in fact, in the Wheel of Time series I think Rand learns to channel in this way).

For a lot of players, the nonsense of a system like dual-classing actively disrupts engagement in the game world. Because it doesn't make sense it makes the game bits more obvious. The real reason that human dual classing is like that has nothing to do with the real world, with Tolkienesque fantasy or any of it. The real reason is that they just wanted to make dual classing so painfaul that pretty much no one would ever do it. And if you think about that, as a way to play a roleplaying game, it's a pretty poor way to go about things.

 

[cwhs01]

My main gripe w. prestige classes is that the often hefty requirements to qualify for them, necesitates planning 5-10 levels ahead, choosing a mix of classes, feats, skills etc. While i can see that prc are meant to be tighter in focus than base classes, an unfortunate effect is the encouragement of systemtinkering/charactertweaking. I think this will almost always be at the cost of creativity and roleplaying opportunities.
I say, lower the entry requirements and be more heavyhanded in allowing prc. If there is no real roleplaying justification (as well as a suitable organisation and trainers) the prc is barred. If it suits the character concept, though the technical requirements are a little lacking (only 3 ranks in spellcraft insted of 8 etc.), allow it. If it's aparent that the choice of prc has little to do w. concept or roleplaying opportunities, but is only taken to get some cool abilities, don't.

I am tinkering w. my own campaign (which i'll probably never play, but tinkering w. it anyways). I think that i'll allow two base classes and 1 prc per character. Feats and spells from phb. Additional feats, spells and rules (psionics, incarnum, book of nine swords stuff etc.)from splatbooks accepted or rejected on a case by case basis. Players should have thought about a character concept and possible ideas for prc (if any), so suitable npc organisations could be integrated into the campaign from the start. This means that campaign start would probably be some time after charactercreation to allow me last minute tweaking.

Oh and regarding OP. Playing archetypes (fighter20, wizard20 etc.) is probably easier than a playing a mishmash of classes and prestigeclasses, but i'm not sure it gets you better or even more roleplaying opportunities. Probably just more predictable characters. Not necesarily a bad thing. But not entirely to my liking as i fear it might become boring always knowing a characters reactions, if i know his class (and this would be fairly easy to guess).

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Agree completely. "Character concept" is very often just an excuse.

One thing to consider it to convert certain prestige classes abilities into feats and feat chains (or something else, if you prefer).

This way a player who wants the "concept" of horizon walker (but indeed we know he wants the features) will take them as feats without the need to take the prestige class.

If you want to limit access to those features, you can just apply to the new feats the same RP restrictions you would apply to the prestige class.

For example, someone wanting the abilities of the Order of the Bow Initiate will have to belong to the Order, even if there is no more a prestige class associated to it but only feats. Lots of published settings do similar things (Forgotten Realms has regional feats, Rokugan has clan-specific feats).

That also gets rid of the stupid idea that the only way for someone belonging to a group to learn the group's "secrets" is to take an entire prestige class, which is not a small thing. Furthermore, "groups" often make sense to be made up of very different types of base characters (warriors, spellcasters, priests...), while published prestige classes are always designed (despite what the designer advertise!) for very few core classes to qualify, sometimes just 1.

Turning prestige class features into feats can (if the DM wants) allow anyone belonging to the group learn the feature NOW or at least SOON, not after 5 levels of qualification.

 

[GreatLemur]

I think airwalkrr is thinking about character classes archetypes or character concepts or identities, while a lot of the rest of us think of them as sets of abilities that are separate from--but hopefully can be used to support and illustrate--character concepts, the same way we look at feats. A few levels of Rogue doesn't mean a character is--or ever was--a thief or spy, just that he's had experience or training in finding traps and stabbing people from behind. "Rogue" isn't any more a character concept than "Great Cleave" is. It's just a tool you can use to make a concept work.

Of course, the truth is that neither idea is right. Even WotC seem to be pretty fuzzy on the issue, creating classes which function as if they were just sets of abilities (with a few notable exceptions), but accompanying them with flavor text that suggests they are identities.

One thing to consider it to convert certain prestige classes abilities into feats and feat chains (or something else, if you prefer).

Yeah, that's pretty much how it should've been done in the first place. For that matter, I'd like to see the same thing done for all classes. Give characters a lot of feats, and make the classes as generic and flexible as possible. (So, yeah: True20.)

 

[airwalkrr]

One thing to consider it to convert certain prestige classes abilities into feats and feat chains (or something else, if you prefer)...

For example, someone wanting the abilities of the Order of the Bow Initiate will have to belong to the Order, even if there is no more a prestige class associated to it but only feats. Lots of published settings do similar things (Forgotten Realms has regional feats, Rokugan has clan-specific feats).

These are very good ideas and I would have no problem integrating them with this variant class system. In fact, that is how I would have prefered they introduced "prestigious" organizations, as groups that give you access to a set of feats, rather than a class. A ranger should be able to join the Knights of the Hart as easily as a fighter or paladin.

 

[Engilbrand]

On the main D&D message boards at the Wizards website, there's a guy who has posts called "Ultimate Devotion" and stuff like that. "Ultimate..." They are a re-imagining of all of the classes. They have different paths to follow that get different abilities. Some of them get different class skills depending on which path you take. Go look at that stuff. It makes it so that people wouldn't want to multi-class or prestige out.