No Prestige Classes

[StGabe]

The problem with feat chains as a way to express a "prestige class" or other concept is that, in that capacity, they lose their value as differentiators and customization. I.e. if you are spending all your feats to express that you are an Order of the Bow Initiate then you don't have any left to be unique yourself.

That's the problem that my halfling rogue/sorceror player would have with this system. Maybe he can take 2-3 feats to get his spell "talents" (and those would be very powerful feats if you think about it) but then those are all of his feats for the first 6 levels of the character. Part of his character concept is that he dual wield daggers (his "claws") and he doesn't have any feats left to express that with. In the end, trading BAB, sneak attack progression, etc. for a couple spell abilities makes a lot more sense both gamewise and RP-wise for his character.

A possible fix, as was mentioned, is simply to give lots and lots of feats. Actually I think such a system would be fine. However, at that point, you have just taken your original problem (if I allow lots of multi-classing then players might abuse it by dabbling in too many classes) and made it worse. Now you have an even more open-ended system than the one that was originally being complained about and your characters may have even more opportunities to "game" the system.

In the end, the multi-classing system itself works pretty well as long as you make sure your players don't let it get out of hand (by, for example, pre-approving multi-class choices). It gives a little bit more structure than this an open-ended, massive list of feats would and yet it also provides some more flexibility and trade offs (i.e. you can vary skill points, hit die, BAB, etc. with classes and you can't with feat chains). If it ain't broke, I'm not sure why you'd want to fix it.

 

[papastebu]

I don't particularly care for PrCs, either. But rather than do away with the whole idea, maybe you could break them up, so that the abilities granted by a given PrC could be gained as a reward--or, perhaps, a result of--for the character's actions in-game. There is a massive number of options that you are throwing out the window if you just get rid of them wholesale. Make those options available as feats, special skills, spell-like abilities, or powerful spells.

One thing that I tried was to make them available as only a 21st-or-higher character option, some of my players grumbled a bit, but it worked in that they all still had that archtype in their minds as they increased in levels. This idea comes straight out of the Darksun setting, where all classes had something that they would become over time, as they became more and more attuned to their primary modus operandi.

YMMV.

 

[airwalkrr]

If it ain't broke, I'm not sure why you'd want to fix it.

If you like the RAW, by all means, keep playing that way. As for me, I think it is broken. You seem to want as many abilities as you want so you support 3e multiclassing because it lets you cherry-pick. I don't like that. Games with such characters lose flavor for me.

 

[Li Shenron]

The problem with feat chains as a way to express a "prestige class" or other concept is that, in that capacity, they lose their value as differentiators and customization. I.e. if you are spending all your feats to express that you are an Order of the Bow Initiate then you don't have any left to be unique yourself.

I don't think it's as bad as you imagine, although it could be for certain specific prcls.

First, you are already differentiating/customizating yourself when you take feats from a PrCl, you are more unique than before exactly because you are taking these feats.

Second, there is never a need to take ALL of them, just as there isn't a need to take all levels in a PrCl (although many gamers can't get out of that idea).

And also, with feats instead of PrCl what changes really is your base class. That sometimes makes a huge difference between characters of the same group. Published prestige classes often define a much more narrow path, where feats (after you qualify) are the only room for freedom; here you spend feats but everything else is free.

 

[Li Shenron]

An example: the Assassin

Let's make an example of a PrCl turned into feats. I choose the Assassin because I actually think it's an example of very good design for a PrCl, but generally speaking the DMG Assassin is only ONE possible concept: that of a rogue-like assassin who uses poison and spells.

How to turn this into feats? (This is just a thought, YMMV)

Death Attack is the main ability. When you use the ability, you have to deliver a sneak attack (this is the mechanics of Death Attack), so it makes sense to require Sneak Attack. It's quite a potent ability and perhaps shouldn't be given at 1st level. Perhaps we could add a requirement of BAB +4: for a Rogue it means 6th level (the same level at which you can take the 1st lv of Assassin PrCl), for a Fighter-type it means 4th level but you have to be multiclassed with Rogue for the sneak attack anyway.

req.: Sneak Attack +1d6, BAB +4

Poison Use could be a feat with no prerequisites. It's a bit weak, so I would also include a +1 to ST vs Poisons.

Hide in Plain Sight is definitely worth a feat. A rank in Hide makes a lot of sense as a requirement, so let's just check the minimum level at which core character can get this ability. A Rogue/Assassin gets it at 13th level earliest. A Ranger gets it at 17th. A Rogue/Shadowdancer gets it at 8th, so let's choose 8th (we maybe also want the Shadowdancer to be broken into feats).

req.: Hide 11

The bonus against poison can be already taken with the Resist Poison feat which grants +4. The fact that you get the bonus at once instead or gradually is irrelevant, it doesn't change the concept!

The other stuff I simply wouldn't make into feats: sneak attack progression, UD and IUD will have to be taken through the Rogue class (although they can easily be turned into feats if you want).

I'd leave spells out of the question, since they cannot easily convert into feats at all. If someone wants to play the concept of a spellcasting assassin, he would choose wizard or sorcerer (or something else) as base class.

 

[phildack]

Strikes me that a lot of the issues around PrC come from multiple use, and untrammelled minmaxing with "builds" - what in the old days used to be called "characters I presume?

I think this can be tackled in a number of ways.

Firstly, enforce the roleplaying aspects of PrCs - you dont just pick Shadowdancer and become one, you need to find someone willing to train you, roleplay the relationship out and commit your character to that theme. Personally, I would also extend this to ALL multi-classing. If you want to gain a level of cleric, your character should have been loyal to the tenets of the faith from the very start (or subject to a convincing and genuine roleplaying conversion).

Secondly, enforce multi-classing penalties more strictly. Or scale them up. Let everyone have 1 PrC for free, but whack them with a massive XP penalty thereafter. You want to be all things to all men, that's gonna take you some time! Or make multiclass limits based on main class level, so that the number of levels of multiclasses you can have is based off your core character level. E.g. perhaps you can only have half your own level in multiclass levels. You want a jack of all trades, play a bard. Want a spell-casting warrior, play a Ranger. Or limit it so that you cant have a third multiclass until your two existing classes are the same level (no more Fighter 5, Thief 1, Ranger 1).

Thirdly - and this requires more work now - edit down some of those monstrous PrCs. Use the core classes as a template for HD, BAB, Saves and when special abilities are gained. Fighter-based PrCs should gain d10 HD and one special ability every other level. OK, it's a prestige class, so one or two extra abilities or an improved save progression. Scale them down, make them less attractive for the abilities alone.

Fourthly and finally, just work it out with your players. What is your character concept. Nope, vetoed - that's a build. Nope, vetoed - that's just a bunch of stats. Yup, agreed - a personality, a motivation, and a convincing reason why your character should be a Fighter/Bard/Wizard/Dragon Disciple.....

 

[Bayushi Seikuro]

A few problems:

2e multiclassing: Well, yes, humans can dual class. But, you can never get levels in your old class again. And, as was pointed out, you get no xp for an encounter you fall back on your fighter skills UNTIL you're a level past there. So, a lvl 5 fighter/lvl 4 mage who's out of spells and goes back to a non-MU weapon - a bow? - gets no xp for that encounter with the dragon.

The dwarf barb/fighter/ranger/horizon walker/bear warrior:
The first, obvious problem is all of the xp penalties for non-preferred classes in that stack. If someone wants to do that and is willing to be 5 levels behind the party - that's their fault.

It just seems you have an idea what you want to run - which is fine. But, you seem to be getting upset that people won't validate it as the Best Way.

And yes. 2e was all kinda janky - rogues, particularly. 'I go pick pockets/open locks all night for xp.'

 

[StGabe]

You seem to want as many abilities as you want so you support 3e multiclassing because it lets you cherry-pick. I don't like that. Games with such characters lose flavor for me.

First of all, let me say that I'm not trying to be an ass and it's fine if we just disagree here. I'm just trying to provide a different perspective and a perspective that I imagine your players will have.

Continuing -- it's not about cherry-picking at all. As a player I rarely take more than two classes and as a DM I strongly urge my players to keep their character development focused and will deny a player access to another class if I feel they are just powergaming.

Where I think the system is not broken is that I think it is a very good framework for expressing a lot of different and interesting character concepts. I've given you a very simple character concept example, which only requires taking two levels of one class other than the original class, that your system won't support. And I think there are a lot of others.

I also think that one simple guideline, "adding a new character class requires DM approval" solves all the problems you have discussed. It's not clear why you don't want to simply use this except that, really, you are just more interested in 2e and want to force your players to play 2e characters (even though most people were extremely glad to be rid of the 2e multiclassing rules because, to most of us, they simply made no sense at all).

Ultimately, as a player, using the 2e rules for this would feel like just another form of railroading. Effectively you are railroading me into playing one of 15 or so different characters and that's it. A lot of opportunities for good roleplay are gone because the character concepts can't be expressed with your character system and abusive "cherry-picking" could be curbed just by you, the DM, stepping in and saying "no" to certain class choices.

 

[StGabe]

I don't think it's as bad as you imagine, although it could be for certain specific prcls.

First, you are already differentiating/customizating yourself when you take feats from a PrCl, you are more unique than before exactly because you are taking these feats.

I see that and I think that yes, you could go this way. However I think that ultimately the class system as it stands is far better for expressing all of this. You can't do hit die, BAB, spell progession tradeoffs with the system you mention, for example. And in the end, two masters of a given Prestige Class are still going to have incredibly similar builds where, using the actual prestige classes, you could have allowed for a lot more customization between the two. Also, it basically limits you to taking one prestige class level every 3 normal levels because of how feats are handed out.

Also, in many ways this simply opens up even more ways to munchkin and powergame. Now you don't even have to take an xp penalty for getting features from several different classes? "Awesome" says the munchkin.

I just don't think there will be any situations where the Prestige Classes as feat chains end up being better than just allowing the player to take an actual Prestige Class. The only problem with this system, really, is that it can be "gamed" and the solution ultimately is that the DM has to take a hand in things. No matter what system you use, it can be gamed at some level or another.

 

[airwalkrr]

FUltimately, as a player, using the 2e rules for this would feel like just another form of railroading. Effectively you are railroading me into playing one of 15 or so different characters and that's it.

That was a valid argument in 2e, but it no longer applies. As I've pointed out, there are numerous ways to diversify your character using feats, skills, and other methods. We simply differ on how significant of a role a character's class plays in identifying that character. IMHO, there are enough class variants, new base classes, skills, feats, skill tricks, etc. to create just about ANY concept you want. Want to play a gish? Be a hexblade or a duskblade. Want to play a sneaky spellcaster? Play a beguiler or a spellthief. Want to be a leader-warrior? Choose a marshal or swashbuckler. There are already plenty of options. The 3e multiclassing rules are inherently flawed because all classes are front-loaded. There are two ways to solve the problem. Either you rewrite every class or you restrict the number of classes PCs can take. The latter is simpler.