-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
No Prestige Classes
- Thread starter airwalkrr
- Start date
airwalkrr said:
Once again this IS a rule: all multiclassing must be roleplayed and you will required to earn the right to multiclass through roleplayed encounters. Adding a roleplaying requirement to every class in the game is no less a rule than adding a roleplaying requirement to paladins or monks.
You just seem to be arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't a rule to suit the direction you want to go. Choosing to have the players fight a difficult encounter, choosing to limit multiclassing based on roleplaying, these are all choices within a greater framework of consistent rules.
papastebu
First Post
A friend of mine recently suggested that the entire game be run as though characters had to become PrCs to actually get any of the higher benefits of playing. There would be two or three archtypes, possibly fighter, expert, and adept, or just fighter and expert.
The fighter is a version of the warrior class as it stands, and would remain that way until second level, at which point the player would choose the next step in the character's career. The fighter could continue as he is, or go into the church, becoming a paladin, or learn skills like survival, two-weapon style fighting, and become a ranger. These wouldn't the only options for the warrior base type, but would allow for something of a starting point for the character to prohgress into later levels.
The expert could progress similarly, learning things like spellcasting--given the high intelligence score needed--from someone who already knew it, or intensifying his training to make himselve into the rogue or thief. My friend and I didn't get to go over the subject for long--we were about to play BloodBowl--but these are the vague impressions I carried away from the conversation.
Another ideer is to start out with the three NPC classes as basics, and add levels of the classes as they exist now. The expert could take actual levels of fighter and a woodlands-based cleric, intensify certain skills all the while, emerging at third level or so as a 1st-level ranger. Warriors could do the cleric option and emerge as paladins, or take levels in rogue and cleric to become rangers. Adepts, of course, would start out with one of the spellcasting types--player's choice, let's say--and could move in some other direction with other core classes, or continue as clerics, wizards, or sorcerers.
It seems like you guys are done talking about this, so I may be talking into the wind, but with a bit of refinement these ideas can help eliminate the cookie-cutterishness that PrCs attempt to ameliorate. You could make PrCs available in only this way, as well. Kind of 1e/2e, so sorry if that's not kosher.
Sorry, too, for revenating a dead thread, but we were looking at this thread when we were having the conversation, and I just got back to a computer with internet.
The fighter is a version of the warrior class as it stands, and would remain that way until second level, at which point the player would choose the next step in the character's career. The fighter could continue as he is, or go into the church, becoming a paladin, or learn skills like survival, two-weapon style fighting, and become a ranger. These wouldn't the only options for the warrior base type, but would allow for something of a starting point for the character to prohgress into later levels.
The expert could progress similarly, learning things like spellcasting--given the high intelligence score needed--from someone who already knew it, or intensifying his training to make himselve into the rogue or thief. My friend and I didn't get to go over the subject for long--we were about to play BloodBowl--but these are the vague impressions I carried away from the conversation.
Another ideer is to start out with the three NPC classes as basics, and add levels of the classes as they exist now. The expert could take actual levels of fighter and a woodlands-based cleric, intensify certain skills all the while, emerging at third level or so as a 1st-level ranger. Warriors could do the cleric option and emerge as paladins, or take levels in rogue and cleric to become rangers. Adepts, of course, would start out with one of the spellcasting types--player's choice, let's say--and could move in some other direction with other core classes, or continue as clerics, wizards, or sorcerers.
It seems like you guys are done talking about this, so I may be talking into the wind, but with a bit of refinement these ideas can help eliminate the cookie-cutterishness that PrCs attempt to ameliorate. You could make PrCs available in only this way, as well. Kind of 1e/2e, so sorry if that's not kosher.
Sorry, too, for revenating a dead thread, but we were looking at this thread when we were having the conversation, and I just got back to a computer with internet.
robberbaron
First Post
Apologies for coming into this thread when it seems to be over but I thought I'd add my 2p worth.
In my 3.5 campaign I made the conscious decision to not only ban PrCs but to stick to the Core books as well (those in the SRD, that is).
I didn't do it to punish powergamers or try to force role-playing. I wanted to keep it simple.
I ran an AD&D1 campaign for 15 years and enjoyed the way the players worked within the limited framework it gave: few classes, restrictive multiclassing, etc.
Also, I really didn't want to have to deal with a player finding a 'cool new class' in a twinkbook and wanting to play it.
Using DMGenie was a big part of my decision as it only includes OGL stuff and creating loads of new classes was not my idea of fun.
Seems to have worked so far. Players generally stick with single classes and seem to enjoy the game so I can't have done anything particularly wrong.
In my 3.5 campaign I made the conscious decision to not only ban PrCs but to stick to the Core books as well (those in the SRD, that is).
I didn't do it to punish powergamers or try to force role-playing. I wanted to keep it simple.
I ran an AD&D1 campaign for 15 years and enjoyed the way the players worked within the limited framework it gave: few classes, restrictive multiclassing, etc.
Also, I really didn't want to have to deal with a player finding a 'cool new class' in a twinkbook and wanting to play it.
Using DMGenie was a big part of my decision as it only includes OGL stuff and creating loads of new classes was not my idea of fun.
Seems to have worked so far. Players generally stick with single classes and seem to enjoy the game so I can't have done anything particularly wrong.
