The Ultimate House Rule

[Ry]

Here's something I'm trying in tomorrow's game:

No PrCs, no tweaks, no complaining.

Wanted to bring to everyone's attention that sometimes, just letting D&D be D&D might be the way to go. I've never tried keeping my hands off the system before, but I realized that everybody wanted a little...

Rogue: "Ouch! I disarmed that trap with my face! Need some healing."

Paladin: "Are you _sure_ healing you is for the greater good?"

Wizard: "Heal the damn rogue - I want him to be alive when I make him obselete."

Fighter: "Obse-what? I don't want to be seeing any of that in this party. This ain't San Francisco!"

and so on...

 

[Erila of Sune]

I intend to run a game like this soon. I live in an area with a bunch of novice GMs who need some convincing that the rules work just fine as-is. Many of them have extensively house-ruled combat without bothering to read the combat chapter thoroughly. Also high on my list of complaints is their tendency to let anything in with a D20 stat block, regardless of whether it looks even remotely balanced.

Considering that many of them feel right now that it's also 'difficult to kill PCs' my adventure of choice is "Tomb of Horrors."

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, I'd be careful with this, because it really depends on how you do PrCs in general. There's several distinct issues, here, IMO:

1> Many PrCs are more powerful than the core classes, as compensation for the cost of the prerequisites. Prime example: all those "+1 to spellcasting class" ones. So, if the campaign allows PrCs, everyone begins to expect to take one simply to keep up with their friends.
2> Taking a PrC or tweaking a core class allows the player to mitigate the drawbacks of his concept, or avoid "useless" class abilities, while adding abilities he knows to be useful. For example, at high levels, a Monk gets a mishmash of exotic abilities, many of which will be nearly useless to specific types of players; allowing Monk PrCs that dump abilities like Tongue of the Sun and Moon and Etherealness in favor of more combat-related abilities can increase power for a combat-heavy campaign, even if the class as a whole is still balanced overall.
3> Allowing the player more customization, primarily through PrCs, can often make the game more "fun". If I want to be an Assassin, it's nice to have a class that says "Assassin" with abilities that make sense for that archtype, as opposed to being a Fighter/Rogue that simply calls himself an Assassin but isn't actually different than any of the other Ftr/Rog's out there.
4> PrCs allow the addition of high-end class abilities to the game without adjusting the core classes. One of the things I hate about the Epic rules is how most classes are simply reduced to "pick a bonus feat from this list:" menus; if you wanted to add these abilities into the core classes you'd have to end up doing the same thing (sort of like the Rogue's high-level abilities), and that really just doesn't appeal to me.

#1 and 2 are faults in PrC design, while 3 and 4 are its primary advantages. If you just allow most PrCs as written out of a splatbook, you'll have balance headaches like you wouldn't believe. There are only a few PrCs I'd allow as written; the Horizon Walker, for example, is very well balanced, but is very distinct from the core classes. No amount of multiclassing would give you its abilities.

So, if you disallow PrCs and class tweaking entirely, then sure, you'll fix the drawbacks, but things will slowly get more boring. You'll keep running into the same basic types of opponents, and many classes (the Fighters, Rogues, etc) won't get any new "neat" abilities as they level.

Anyway, IMC each person sits down with the DM and designs a PrC to match his character concept, 5 or so levels in advance (often using splatbook PrCs as inspiration). The DM's job is to make sure the PrC is balanced with the core classes, integrate it into the campaign world, and make sure the player doesn't just put off the prerequisites until the last moment. It may not be realistic to have the Artificer Guild pop up out of nowhere just because a player wants to go that route, but it keeps things interesting without blowing game balance away.

 

[Felix]

Bravo. I applaud you. I think it's high time DMs and players realize that there is a reason PrCs are in the DMG.

 

[Erila of Sune]

Well, I realize are in the DMG for a reason, but I've got a very specific purpose in running this game: Many players and DMs go too far in the other direction.

For example, in a recent campaign by combining two Quintessential books and some alchemal substance from a third source, along with a PrC, a 6th level rogue-based character was able to deal something along the lines of 90 points of damage with a sneak-attack. I intend to balance my own game to account for the fact that there are no PrCs, and the main point is to show that the route to fun isn't necessarily allowing in every splatbook, third-party accessory, and crackpot with the ability to write legible English with a D20 insignia and the OGL license printed somewhere on it. All it does is overpower the guy who can pour real money into getting his character all the 'neat toys.'

That said, normally PrCs are fine, but they do need to be used in some moderation. I just think that this may be the only way to pound it into most of these people's heads that the powers don't make things fun by themselves.

Edit: Colors messed up. that the PrCs

 

[PennStud77]

Completely agree that moderation and GM approval are certainly excellent ideas. Just a couple of thoughts, though.

I don't think you should complain about a Rogue doing high sneak attack damage. That is their thing. If they get caught in a fight w/o being able to sneak attack, they suck, so of course the Rogue will want to maximize their sneak attacking. Now, I'm not saying that the min/maxers should be left alone. If you think 90 dmg is too much, there's no problem with that. Increase the Spot and Listen scores of the NPCs. I'm not disagreeing with you 100%, I think players matching up multiple books for such a task is overkill, but you should be wary of squashing player creativity and options TOO MUCH.

Secondly, if I were playing in a campaign where the GM said no PrCs, I heavily suspect that no players would play a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. There would be almost exclusively fighters, rogues, rangers, monks. The fighting classes get much more specialized as they level as it is. Everyone gets feats every third level with which to specialize their characters, but between the extra feats of the fighter and the class abilities of all the fighting classes, there is much more room for improvement and even specialization. Sure, spellcasters get more spells, but their ability to manipulate those spells in different ways is limited (as compared to a fighter who can weild his weapons very differently now that he has this new feat, for example). Many will disagree with me, I'm sure, and they wouldn't be wrong to, but the frustration I've always had with spellcasting classes is that the character is not allowed to change much, either than casting different spells, as they level. To be denied a PrC would seriously make me hesitate going into such a class.

Thoughts?

 

[Otterscrubber]

I've never liked most PrCs. The ones that made it into the 3.5 DMG are not as bad as some of the other ones I've seen, but even some of them are a bit over the top. I don't think it will ruin a campaign to allow some, but I do get sick of seeing character concepts that have 5 different PrCs from 4 different splatbooks incorporating spells and/or magic items that have never even been remotely balanced.

In short, I think core only campaigns rock and force both DMs and PCs to get a bit creative and stop relying on game mechanics to define your characters or add "flavor", whatever that is.

 

[Erila of Sune]

I don't think you should complain about a Rogue doing high sneak attack damage. That is their thing. If they get caught in a fight w/o being able to sneak attack, they suck, so of course the Rogue will want to maximize their sneak attacking. Now, I'm not saying that the min/maxers should be left alone. If you think 90 dmg is too much, there's no problem with that.

I have a problem when this isn't a good roll, but more like an average. At 6th level, no class should be able to deal 90 damage with any sort of consistency. Sure, A wizard/sorcerer can do it with a fireball, IF so many enemies are clustered in just such a way as to hit them all with said fireball, IF he rolls well and IF nobody makes their saves. It's a nice 'once or twice a campaign' event, I suppose, but when you say "I'm hitting him with my exotic weapon, using my exotic poison, and dealing....*yawn*.....90 damage to him again" I see a problem.

Secondly, if I were playing in a campaign where the GM said no PrCs, I heavily suspect that no players would play a wizard, sorcerer, or cleric. There would be almost exclusively fighters, rogues, rangers, monks. The fighting classes get much more specialized as they level as it is. Everyone gets feats every third level with which to specialize their characters, but between the extra feats of the fighter and the class abilities of all the fighting classes, there is much more room for improvement and even specialization. Sure, spellcasters get more spells, but their ability to manipulate those spells in different ways is limited (as compared to a fighter who can weild his weapons very differently now that he has this new feat, for example). Many will disagree with me, I'm sure, and they wouldn't be wrong to, but the frustration I've always had with spellcasting classes is that the character is not allowed to change much, either than casting different spells, as they level. To be denied a PrC would seriously make me hesitate going into such a class.

Well, so far I have one person trying to play a wizard (and I had to repeatedly say 'no' to letting him age his character) and only two people in the campaign. I'm more worried about lacking a cleric, but I'm sure someone will step up to the plate. And 'just casting different spells' can add a lot of personality to a character if done right.

In short, I think Otterscrubber has is right. PrCs are essentially a crutch and a twink tool in most hands. That's not to say they lack their uses, and done properly they have a wonderful effect on the game. I just don't feel you should be forced to use them just to have fun, and I'm using my own game to try to make that point.