PrC’s, one at a time or for dipping?

[wildstarsreach]

Usually if someone has 1-2 PrCs, they are gaining the abilities. If they have 4-5 PrCs, it's no longer about abilities; they just want to get their saves really high.

I take a really dim view of someone banning PrC dipping without having done it a few dozen times themselves to understand the tradeoffs. Sure, it's easy to just give a knee-jerk response like, "But he has evasion and mettle, and still casts 9th level spells! That has to be broken!" Usually someone is giving up all their feats (and not a little bit of BAB) to multiclass that far. If it's worth it to them, why not let them do it?

Because prestige classes should be rarer. Take the Arch-Mage for example. To qualify for this is very focused and difficult. Let's say that say he takes Abjurant champion from 10 to 13 and then then last 2 levels at 19 and 20.

You could do this too as the Arch mage by taking the skill and school focus feats at 3, 6, 9, take the combat casting and martial weapon proficiency at 1st which leave you a feat of choice at 12th. This makes for a powerfule combo that may be a problem. One PrC as a general rule in my opinion. I think the next mage I play is going to do this.

 

[moritheil]

Because prestige classes should be rarer. Take the Arch-Mage for example. To qualify for this is very focused and difficult. Let's say that say he takes Abjurant champion from 10 to 13 and then then last 2 levels at 19 and 20.

You could do this too as the Arch mage by taking the skill and school focus feats at 3, 6, 9, take the combat casting and martial weapon proficiency at 1st which leave you a feat of choice at 12th. This makes for a powerfule combo that may be a problem. One PrC as a general rule in my opinion. I think the next mage I play is going to do this.

Why is it a problem? Because the DM can no longer challenge the players? Because the DM can no longer run a module out of the box without tweaking it? Most DMs make their own adjustments anyhow, so I don't see the problem.

 

[3catcircus]

Why is it a problem? Because the DM can no longer challenge the players? Because the DM can no longer run a module out of the box without tweaking it? Most DMs make their own adjustments anyhow, so I don't see the problem.

It becomes a problem when any of the following is true:

1. The DM is running a low-magic/low-power/gritty/etc. campaign.
2. All of the other PCs are "normal."
3. THe PC in question is much higher in play than the CR calculates to (e.g. if the PC is considered a CR 5 encounter but really works out to a CR 8 encounter)

 

[moritheil]

It becomes a problem when any of the following is true:

1. The DM is running a low-magic/low-power/gritty/etc. campaign.
2. All of the other PCs are "normal."
3. THe PC in question is much higher in play than the CR calculates to (e.g. if the PC is considered a CR 5 encounter but really works out to a CR 8 encounter)

As a DM, I strive to encourage thought and planning on the part of my players, and to discourage indifference to my campaign. Knocking down the best build to the level of the others not only discourages planning, it encourages apathy. If three people show up with straight classes and one person shows up with a well-planned multiclass, then clearly the person who planned out the good build cared enough to do it. In accordance with my philosophy, he should be rewarded.

Now, I understand that some DMs ban material. That's different. I'm talking about when a failure to produce a competitive character is not the result of not having sources available, but is instead the result of a player not caring enough to look around and distinguish his or her character. I could entertain an argument that some players are simply no good at min/maxing, but a web search takes under a minute and there are publicly posted examples of decent builds for every concept at this point. It doesn't take any skill anymore. The only plausible reason for a non-newbie player to not have a good build is apathy.

Regarding CR estimates, I find that tactic highly questionable. Power levels vary widely for monsters of the same CR; the concept that normative power level can be based on out-of-the-book monsters (who tend to have ridiculously bad feat selection and poor tactics) is just going to result in the need to gimp most builds (including most single class builds) if you stick to it.

 

[hong]

I'm talking about when a failure to produce a competitive character is not the result of not having sources available,

If I was interested in "competition", I'd play Counterstrike.

 

[moritheil]

If I was interested in "competition", I'd play Counterstrike.

Cute. But you might want to note that I am not the one who started off insisting that builds be compared to other players' builds. I merely suggest that if they are compared, the DM should look at them from another angle.

If I wanted to spoonfeed people all day long, I'd work at a nursery.

 

[hong]

Cute. But you might want to note that I am not the one who started off insisting that builds be compared to other players' builds.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

I merely suggest that if they are compared, the DM should look at them from another angle.

Nonsense. The DM should look at them from whatever angle best promotes harmony in the group, and if that means hobbling excessive powergaming so as to shut down competitive pressures and tensions, so be it.

If I wanted to spoonfeed people all day long, I'd work at a nursery.

As before, think of it as character building.

 

[moritheil]

You say this like it's a negative thing.

Judging one person based on what other people are capable of is almost never a good thing. I grant that it often happens, but why promote it? It's arbitrary.

Nonsense. The DM should look at them from whatever angle best promotes harmony in the group, and if that means hobbling excessive powergaming so as to shut down competitive pressures and tensions, so be it.

Lack of tension in a campaign = lackluster campaign. Besides, unless someone starts out with an inferiority complex, why would they mind what someone else in their group is capable of? More power in their group is good for their character as well. If they do have an inferiority complex, that's sort of beyond the scope of the DM's responsibility anyhow.

Are you saying that friendly competition is a problem?

As before, think of it as character building.

Har har. It's off topic, but not!

 

[robberbaron]

If a Prestige Class is so Prestigeous shouldn't you want to stick with it rather than taking the goodies and heading off to another 'Prestige' Class?

Maybe there should be another name for them. Advanced Class?

 

[hong]

Judging one person based on what other people are capable of is almost never a good thing.

It is entirely a good thing in a game that's based on cooperation rather than competition.

I grant that it often happens, but why promote it? It's arbitrary.

Why not?

Lack of tension in a campaign = lackluster campaign.

Nobody said anything about lack of tension in terms of overcoming campaign challenges. If anything, having to work harder at powergaming your build leads to MORE tension, since you'll have to rely more on good rolls and/or good in-game tactics and cooperation to defeat your enemies.

Besides, unless someone starts out with an inferiority complex,

Nobody also said anything about an inferiority complex. The desire for an equitable state of play is a basic part of human nature, just as much as the desire to maximise utility on an independent basis. Hint: the work to create a powerful build is not a good in its own right, and if the effort in a direction orthogonal to one's natural gaming taste exceeds the return, then that work is of no value.

why would they mind what someone else in their group is capable of?

Why would that someone else mind having their powergaming gene challenged with extra obstacles?

More power in their group is good for their character as well.

Nobody also said anything about character desires. What the character wants is irrelevant to what goes on in the metagame process of determining campaign parameters.

If they do have an inferiority complex, that's sort of beyond the scope of the DM's responsibility anyhow.

Exactly. And hence any powergamer worth playing with is not going to worry about having their powergaming gene challenged.