No Prestige Classes

[StGabe]

Also, I find that with the BASE classes, multiclassing rarely increases power. More often than not people end up slightly nerfing themselves by stalling their core class progression.

Your example with a Barbarian/Fighter is incorrect, that is not strictly superior to a pure Fighter. The character has effectively trading 1/2 of a fighter feat for what he gets as a level 1 Barbarian. They've also incurred an XP penalty (or burned their favored class use). And really that sort of trade off makes sense.

The biggest "broken" bits of multiclassing BASE classes that I have seen were the 3.0 Ranger class (fixed in 3.5, thankfully) that got way too much for just being level 2 and people who take a level of fighter just to get all the armor and weapon feats. The latter I have patched with a house rule saying that you don't get any additional weapon/armor feats for multiclassing. It's a good rule that works very well in practice and it makes a lot of sense with the system as it is. You don't get to retroactively pick up [4xBase Skills Points] for taking a different multiclass either.

Arguably a Barbarian's base movement bonus could fall under this as well but I haven't rule that.

You might find a few examples of where a multiclassed character has a slight advantage at a certain level but generally I think it averages out. It's also the case that certain base classes are just more powerful, overall, at certain levels than others, but that averages out as well.

...

Where I've seen big problems with allowing all sorts of multiclassing is when DM's let players take any prestige class or base class in any book they've found. That seems like the core issue here. I don't understand why a DM would do that. Many of the prestige classes and variants are outright broken. Even in the core books like the "Complete" series. I take a single glance at a lot of those classes and all I see is "broken!". Furthermore, when you allow any prestige or variant class in the book into your campaign you're just not doing a good job of vetting what matches with your campaign style and so yes you're going to get characters that are all over the place.

So yes, if you let your characters dabble in any PrC they find in any book they will end up all over the place and broken-good. Simple solution: vet what PrC's you let them take! Use a little common sense about what classes fit your world and how your players use those PrC's. Problem solved.

 

[StGabe]

Final comment: powergamers will power game.

No matter how many classes you let them take.

Don't fix the rules if it's your players that are broken (because you're effectively punishing the players who can roleplay for the actions of those who can't).

 

[airwalkrr]

I don't mind powergaming as long as it is not at the expense of roleplaying, which most multiclassing I have seen is motivated by.

Anyway, we clearly just prefer different game styles StGabe, so let us just agree to disagree.

 

[Gabester]

Fair enough.

But do consider your players too. It's your job to entertain them, really, and not the other way around.

 

[Technik4]

I don't mind powergaming as long as it is not at the expense of roleplaying, which most multiclassing I have seen is motivated by.

But you seem to think that multiclassing IS power-gaming, even if it is roleplayed. And that multiclassing spellcasters somehow creates more powerful characters, which it doesn't.

 

[Greatwyrm]

I've tinkered with the idea of banning PrCs, and they are an optional part of the game anyway. However, I agree with (and use) the house rule of one PrC per character. More than that and they tend to lose prestiege Also, while some players use PrCs as a way to stack up bonuses, don't rob yourself of a good tool for adding depth to your game world.

I personally wouldn't use the 2E version of multi/dual classing. 3E handles multiclassing better. Dual classing never really made sense to me in the first place. If you really want to guide them toward single classing, cut out the Favored Class rule and start taking penalties as soon as the second class is added. Saying "no" always ticks off players. If you change the cost and let them decide whether or not to pay it, that's different.

 

[pallandrome]

I usually have a few rules about PrCs, a la No Cherry Picking (you must obtain every level of a PrC before you take any levels of anything else) as well as the Quest for Availibility (you can't just take a prestige class. You must participate in a quest of some sort to find/convince someone to train you. This generally means you must convince the rest of the party to help you complete said quest.)

 

[Quartz]

Where I've seen big problems with allowing all sorts of multiclassing is when DM's let players take any prestige class or base class in any book they've found.

Hear hear.

 

[Narsil]

My personal rule:
Give me a good reason in-story and in-RP, and then I'll say 'Okay, you can multiclass or take this Prestige Class'. Without a reason? Bugger off and find another DM.

I would not, for instance, be opposed to a Paladin with his or her high Charisma discovering some inborn arcane talent and taking levels of Sorcerer. It would make sense by roleplaying standards for a Paladin to remain a Paladin, however, even after his magical talents had been discovered, since magic can be just another useful tool to wield against the malicious forces of the world in order to destroy them.

Thus the levels of Eldritch Knight, Spellsword and Holy Scourge start kicking in, and his knightly talents increase in usefulness, as does his new-found power to incinerate evil from ten paces.

Prestige Classes Are Not The Enemy. It's powergamers that ruin it.

 

[airwalkrr]

Fair enough.

But do consider your players too. It's your job to entertain them, really, and not the other way around.

I disagree. It's a two-way street. I don't spend hours upon hours planning a campaign simply to entertain other people. I spend time on my campaigns because I enjoy seeing them play out and I like watching people come up with creative solutions to puzzles and challenges. If I am going to spend that much time on something, I would like it to play out according to the rules that I choose. The players are there to ensure the DM has a good time as much as the DM must do so for the players.

I am a pretty old school DM. Entertaining the players is not my #1 priority. If I wanted to simply entertain them, I would invite them over to watch movies and serve them drinks. My job is not to entertain the players, it is to design a game world that challenges them and enforce the rules of the game as the players explore. This is a personal preference though and I know well from experience that not everyone likes that kind of game. But it is the kind of game I enjoy running most. I am all about choice. If a player does not feel like he will enjoy my DMing style, I encourage him to look for another game. On the other hand, I have never had a player leave one of my campaigns because he or she was not having fun. Most of them keep coming back for the next campaign.