Top 10 Reasons to Take 20 Levels in A Base Class

[Elephant]

Top 10 Reasons for doing a 20 level base class (and things that undermine that):

1. Barbarian's Mighty Rage (Frenzied Berserker's Deathless Frenzy)
2. Bard's Inspire Heroics and Mass Suggestion (Bards are not heavily played in 3.5...and I'm not sure what Bard PrCs there are)
3. Cleric who can Turn Dread Wraiths and bigger undead (Radiant Servant of Pelor, plus Heal/Mass Heal make Turning less attractive)
4. Druid Wildshape (Wildshape-focused PrCs)
5. Fighter bonus feats (coming up with 18 feats for one character is hard without significantly breaking focus.)
6. Monk abilities
7. Paladin's 5/day Smite Evil (Smite progression is available in some PrCs, and the other Pal abilities aren't that impressive after 5th level, with some spell exceptions)
8. Ranger's Camouflage and Hide in Plain Sight (Invisibility potions, more abilities available with Ranger-focused PrCs, especially for levels 12-20)
9. Rogue Special Abilities and 10d6 Sneak Attack (Evasion is the only "must-have" one, and Sneak Attack progression is available in PrCs)
10. New base classes in splatbooks like Scout that grant special abilities all the way up to 20th level.

Does anyone have more reasons that support playing a pure 20th level single-class progression? How about specific PrCs that more than make up for what you lose in these examples?

 

[rato]

6. Monk abilities

You are kidding me, aren't you?

 

[Psion]

Does anyone have more reasons that support playing a pure 20th level single-class progression?

The munchkin tax.

 

[der_kluge]

You're playing Castles and Crusades.

 

[Psion]

You are kidding me, aren't you?

[Maxwell Smart voice]

Wouldya believe... 19 levels?

[/Smart]

-- Not a fan of the turning into an outsider thing.

 

[Elephant]

You are kidding me, aren't you?

No, not kidding. Monks get abilities added all the way up to 20th level - they don't taper off like those of, say, the Rogue or the Ranger.

I'm not well-versed in monk-specific PrCs, so I couldn't make a good comparison based on any such things...also, I didn't try to analyze how GOOD most of the specific abilities were...just if they were there (with a couple of PAINFULLY obvious examples, of course).

 

[AIM-54]

No one else is doing it?

I played a Monk to 17th level before that campaign died. It was a lot of fun. One of the other players multi-classed just about every level with less than optimal results.

Maybe I'm unique, but I'm not much into multiclassing in D&D. d20 Modern is something entirely different, however.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Maybe I'm unique, but I'm not much into multiclassing in D&D.

Not unique. My best game experiences as a player in d20 have been with single-classed characters.

Part of it comes down to how much information I have to manage. In d20, it's alot, even just for a single-classed character, and I'm finding that I do better in simpler-mechanic systems, so a rules-intense game like D&D three-point-whatever means I feel more comfortable with a single class. From a role-playing aspect it also means I can stay more focused on how I envision the character.

Warrior Poet

 

[Psion]

Maybe I'm unique, but I'm not much into multiclassing in D&D.

Most of my players prefer to single class, it seems.

Which is somewhat odd to me, because it's a lot easier to manage now than before 3e (but a lot less twinky, too, so I guess that's where the problem lies.)

 

[AIM-54]

Which is somewhat odd to me, because it's a lot easier to manage now than before 3e

Very true. Part of the reason with the monk is that there were no good PrCs that fit the character. He really was quite suited to be a monk. And that's what he was.

But I don't think I've ever multiclassed a 3.0/3.5 character, though the number I've played for a reasonable period of time is fairly small.