The multitude of these types of PrCs have given the players a sense of entitlement. Anyone remember the original DMG stuff on classes and PrCs? How more often is it that the players find the things they want and then badger their DM into letting them play it, without any thematic addition to the campaign.
"Back in my day, we had to WALK three miles just to LOOK at a prestige class... through the snow, fighting Indians... uphill both ways!"
The solution to PrC dipping is to create and then enforce a rule that says:
Once you enter a prestige class you must complete it.
Whether its a 3 level a 5 level or a 10 level (or 12.. there's a couple of those running around), once you join it you are stuck with it until it is done.
This rule would not apply to epic prestige class progressions. (i.e. if there are 10 levels non epic,l but the rules give an epic progression, you'd have to do the first 10 but wouldn't be locked into the epic 'less you wanted to take 'em).
It would solve alot of the "dipping" problems while still allowing characters who wanted to select a prestige class to do so.
-S
I didn't read through the entire thread, since some of the posts were just to argue weather this was needed or not in PRPG (which isn't the point of the thread, I presume), so if someone else mentioned something along these lines, then I apologize.
What I have taken to doing in 3e is that you may only take another class/PrC if the level of your lowest class =/> the number of classes you already have.
Its very simple -
If your player has a ftr7/Wiz5/Rog2, he would have to take at least one more level of Rogue in order to make it equal to the number of classes he has, which is three. If he does this and then takes a lev of some PrC, now he must take ANOTHER level in Rogue PLUS three more levels in that PrC before he can even contemplate takeing a 5th class.
The way it works is the more you 'dip', the more of a penalty you acrue.
|
The multitude of these types of PrCs have given the players a sense of entitlement. Anyone remember the original DMG stuff on classes and PrCs? How more often is it that the players find the things they want and then badger their DM into letting them play it, without any thematic addition to the campaign."Back in my day, we had to WALK three miles just to LOOK at a prestige class... through the snow, fighting Indians... uphill both ways!"
When my players insist on out-of-the-norm character elements (like playing evil PCs or savage humanoids) they know that the crap can hit the fan quickly in-game.
"Oh yeah, go ahead and play an Orc PC, pretty much every dwarf in the campaign world will attack you on sight."
LOL...
I do that to anyone who runs a Drow - the entire world is against them.
This is why I don't think the rules should be changed. Multiclass restrictions are like software authentication, they punish legitimate users (players) and aren't really effective at preventing pirates (munchkins).
This is probably the best argument I've heard so far in this conversation.
-Steve
First, I agree with you that the purpose of PrCs has been vastly warped over time. The entire name "prestige class" highlights that it is supposed to be a different from normal PC classes. The idea that they should be tied to specific organizations and have to be RPed to qualify for is sort of inherent in the definition.
On the other hand... multi-classing under 3.5 is broken and they needed a hack to make it work. Prestige classes fit this niche fairly well. While I agree that this is counter to the original intent of the mechanism it's not inherently broken to use them this way. I can accept classes like the Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight for this purpose.
However, I tend to agree that there are a ton of Prestige Classes that are just designed to be core classes plus xxxx. We'll have to see how PfRPG does with prestige classes.
-- Dennis
|
Sure, DMs can look through his library of books to see what kinds of PrCs that would fit his current players, and weave them into the campaign.
But how often does that happen?
How more often is it that the players find the things they want and then badger their DM into letting them play it, without any thematic addition to the campaign.
So true....so true.
I start by allowing only certain books (the first four complete books outside the core 3), then I remove any PrC that doesn't have a "place" in my world. For instance since there's no "oriental flavored/themed" land/culture, allowing a samuri type class makes about as much sense in my campaign as a tractor-pull!
Then those that have specific niches or theme-based (for instance the Purple Dragon of Cormyr in Forgotten Realms) will have a specific criteria in order to be a part of it. It wouldn't make sense for a Rashmen barbarian to ever be a part of the purple dragons - or a thayan wizard to be a War Wizard of Cormyr - so for my campaign homebrew world, I have certain PrCs belong to certain cultures/regions/organizations, and work for a PC only if they're a part of that.
Of course communication about what the player wants to do with his character from the start does help so that I can as DM - coach him on how that would work within the campaign.
This is another reason why I see PrCs as you "you need to finish the PrC out in all levels before you can take another one."
Robert
I look at it this way, its always easier to say "Yes, you can" then it is to say "No, you can't".
By having No rules in place DMs have to House Rule in changes that have no basis for the players to draw apon. No rule thier before, now thier is one. This forces DMs to take something away from players, that players think is thier due. Causing bad feelings, expecially in new players.
But if thier are Limitations and Restrictions in place, then Players know they are thier and accept them. Expecially New players. So if the DM wishes to house rule in a change, he/she can. And instead of taking something away from the players, hes giving something too the players. And Happy feelings all around.
Its agreed all around that every group is going to play the way they want when it concerns PrCs. So why not think about future New players, and expecially future New DMs. Put the rule in for them, nothing worse the friction amongst friends caused by a game.
I look at it this way, its always easier to say "Yes, you can" then it is to say "No, you can't".
By having No rules in place DMs have to House Rule in changes that have no basis for the players to draw apon. No rule thier before, now thier is one. This forces DMs to take something away from players, that players think is thier due. Causing bad feelings, expecially in new players.
But if thier are Limitations and Restrictions in place, then Players know they are thier and accept them. Expecially New players. So if the DM wishes to house rule in a change, he/she can. And instead of taking something away from the players, hes giving something too the players. And Happy feelings all around.
Its agreed all around that every group is going to play the way they want when it concerns PrCs. So why not think about future New players, and expecially future New DMs. Put the rule in for them, nothing worse the friction amongst friends caused by a game.
Kong, this makes a lot of sense to me, and was the gist of what I was trying to convey. A restriction is only a restriction if it's seen as such. Sometimes it is just a thematic element of the game design that makes sense in its context. The 10% XP penalty for multiclassing made sense to me in this regard. Though I can understand the desire to remove many of the XP "fees" in the game, this one always seemed like a reasonable limitation on multiclassing.
Now that's just an example, mind you. Obviously, for Prestige Classes, there are many possible options to consider - if any. An XP penalty would be one of course, as would the suggestion made by many of only allowing one PrC to a character, or of allowing one PrC at a time.
Personally, I have some problems with forcing characters to complete a PrC or only have one. For starters, as was mentioned, some PrCs are only 5 or less levels. To make special exeptions for these classes quickly complicates the game. Making someone finish a PrC before moving on makes a little more sense, but then that isn't really true of Base Classes, so why should PrCs be any different.
Food for thought.
-Steve
|
I'm wondering what other people think about this commonly-heard grievance. I'm also curious if anyone has a possible solution to the problem.
Prestige classes should be that: paths to which adventurers aspire. I don't allow my players to pursue a second prestige class before they've taken all levels in the first. I still allow them to take levels in other base classes as they wish once they've started down a prestige path, though. This leads to some cherry=picking, but it's uncommon.
Prestige classes should be that: paths to which adventurers aspire. I don't allow my players to pursue a second prestige class before they've taken all levels in the first. I still allow them to take levels in other base classes as they wish once they've started down a prestige path, though. This leads to some cherry=picking, but it's uncommon.
I'm wondering what other people think about this commonly-heard grievance. I'm also curious if anyone has a possible solution to the problem.
Maybe something like how the 3.x monk and paladin were restricted. If you leave a PrC to start another one, you can no longer level any further in that PrC.
-Steve
|
|
Maybe something like how the 3.x monk and paladin were restricted. If you leave a PrC to start another one, you can no longer level any further in that PrC.
-Steve
Most people who are going to do that are people who aren't wanting/planning on taking more levels in that PrC anyway.
So that's really not that restricting.
Ruling that a second PrC cannot be taken until the first one is completed is a good balancing restriction IMO.
Robert
|
|
Sure, DMs can look through his library of books to see what kinds of PrCs that would fit his current players, and weave them into the campaign.
But how often does that happen?
How more often is it that the players find the things they want and then badger their DM into letting them play it, without any thematic addition to the campaign.
So true....so true.
I start by allowing only certain books (the first four complete books outside the core 3), then I remove any PrC that doesn't have a "place" in my world. For instance since there's no "oriental flavored/themed" land/culture, allowing a samuri type class makes about as much sense in my campaign as a tractor-pull!
Then those that have specific niches or theme-based (for instance the Purple Dragon of Cormyr in Forgotten Realms) will have a specific criteria in order to be a part of it. It wouldn't make sense for a Rashmen barbarian to ever be a part of the purple dragons - or a thayan wizard to be a War Wizard of Cormyr - so for my campaign homebrew world, I have certain PrCs belong to certain cultures/regions/organizations, and work for a PC only if they're a part of that.
Of course communication about what the player wants to do with his character from the start does help so that I can as DM - coach him on how that would work within the campaign.
This is another reason why I see PrCs as you "you need to finish the PrC out in all levels before you can take another one."
Robert
Wow, that sounds very much like a fellow DM in my gaming group. Almost to the letter, and our group liked the policy so much we pretty much adopted it as the standard for every campaign no matter the DM.
|
|
Wow, that sounds very much like a fellow DM in my gaming group. Almost to the letter, and our group liked the policy so much we pretty much adopted it as the standard for every campaign no matter the DM.
I started this after I saw a player in a group I played in in 3.0 (I wasnt even the DM but it offended my opinion of the 'spirit' of the game and the spirit of prestige classes) was playing a sorcerer. Then decided take one level of some cleric-based prestige class (that didn't require you be a cleric - just spellcasting and knowledge religion) in the Defenders of Faith (can't remember the name - think it was Sacred Exorcist) that granted an extra domain which can be one of the new ones in the Defenders of the Faith. This domain granted the paladin's "divine Grace" ability - and being a sorcerer with a 30+ Charisma at the time, his saving throws all went up instantly by like +14 for Fort and Will and +12 to his Ref - all for taking that one level. I think we were 12th level at the time.
Then of course he went back to being a sorcerer.
I vowed I would never let a player abuse the system like that. Hence the reason for my flavor-based restrictive nature of the PrCs. It started then - back in 2000, and it's been followed ever since.
For a DM that doesn't want things to get ridiculously power-curved and out of hand, its a perfectly balanced, and fair restriction that actually makes sense and IMO hold close to the true ideal and spirit of what Prestige Classes were meant to exemplify.
Robert
Everyone seems to have their own take on this; some will prefer to be less restrictive ("Whoa, groovy, man... like, whatever you want, dude!"), and others more restrictive ("No character may breathe unless I allow it! And if I don't give them permission, they die of suffocation! So bow down!"). The thing is, as soon as we put a hard, mechanical rule in, one way or the other, some people will be forced to houserule around it.
So I propose that a "soft" rule is better, one along the lines of "each DM will decide which prestige classes are appropriate for each campaign, and what the restrictions are on following them. Therefore, the official rule is that no character may take levels in a prestige class except by prior DM approval, no matter what specific guidelines your DM prefers."
I know this is like a restatement of Rule Zero, but in this case, it doesn't hurt to re-iterate it. Preferrably with an example or two, so people can see where it's coming from: "Jim's campaign takes place in the Forgotten Realms. Jim decides that only PrCs that simulate FR-appropriate organizations are allowable, but otherwise places no restrictions on following them. On the other hand, Fred's homebrew campaign takes place at an intersection of several planes. Fred allows any PrC from any of the core books, but no 3rd party sources. Fred's world runs on cooperation among specialists; therefore, no character in Fred's campaign can ever have levels in more than one prestige class."
|
|
So I propose that a "soft" rule is better, one along the lines of "each DM will decide which prestige classes are appropriate for each campaign, and what the restrictions are on following them. Therefore, the official rule is that no character may take levels in a prestige class except by prior DM approval, no matter what specific guidelines your DM prefers."
I agree with Kirth
But there's nothing stopping some sort of fiat that says - "There are no restriction on how many PrCs one in entitled to based on prerequisites, but some DMs may find allowing more than one causes some characters to become more powerful than the current campaign is prepared for."
:-)
Robert
I'd like to bring up a new point for the conversation that hasn't been addressed yet. It's a bit of a diversion from the topic, but I think it's relevant.
Some people in this thread have stated that the XP penalty for Multiclassing is unnecessary and punitive. Currently, Pathfinder has replaced the multiclassing XP penalty with a bonus to HP that is added whenever a character takes a level of their preferred class selection.
I'd assert that this is more punative, because in effect it punishes people who choose non stereotypical classes for their characters with one less HP. In 3.x, a character was free to choose any base class they wanted with no penalty. In pathfinder, now, if an elf wants to be a barbarian, he is even more disadvantaged compared to a half orc than he or she was before. In effect, the character is punished for not fitting stereotypical roles.
My point in this is that, looking from a rules-based perspective, carrots and sticks in this case are relatively interchangable. What felt like a stick in the old system was, in some ways, a lot less restrictive than what's in place now.
Tying this into the discussion on PrCs, as things stand right now, taking levels in a PrC costs you a HP per level. Reverting to the old system, but adding a form of XP cost for dipping into many levels of different PrCs might actually be less restrictive and costly than what's currently in play.
-Steve
The hitpoint favored class option has been discussed a lot. My personal preference would be to give a specific bonus that was based on the class, as opposed to giving a bonus for "choosing" the class.
This would mean you'd get the bonus no matter what, just that sometimes it's matching your particular character focus, and other times it's a point of versatility.
So... just like the multiclass xp penalty was a point of contention before, the hitpoint bonus on chosen class is a point of contention again.
And suggestions that break away from the concept of punishment are being given (no xp penalty, bonus that always applies).
.
I personally don't think that multiclassing should have any xp penalty, as it's really just the tools you use to make your character concept.
I don't even like the idea of limiting PrCs in any way, for that very same reason.
If you are going to allow non-flavour, non-campaign specific prestige classes, then you should treat them the same as any other set of classes you want to add to a person's repetoire.
I'm of the camp that thinks Prestige Classes should mean something important when you pick them up, but in the way that the Prestige Classes are hand selected for the campaign setting, not by limiting player advancement.
On the other hand, if a player wants some neat class abilities he saw someplace, I'd be inclined to allow swapping these features in an appropriate base class if that's all he wanted. Why take on whole class levels in things that may or may not fit the character concept, or campaign setting for that matter, when it's just a neat ability that you would like to add instead of something else?
Then again, I've always been more ready to tweak the system ever since 2e and our multitude of house rules.
So I propose that a "soft" rule is better, one along the lines of "each DM will decide which prestige classes are appropriate for each campaign, and what the restrictions are on following them. Therefore, the official rule is that no character may take levels in a prestige class except by prior DM approval, no matter what specific guidelines your DM prefers."
I might suggest the wording for that rule "Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor for yourself."
Whew... what a mouthful, I know it sounds pretty severe but that more or less matches what you suggest. Incidentally it's plagiarized from the 3rd Paragraph on the Prestige Class heading on page 176 of the DMG.
The entire reason PrCs were put in the DMG instead of the PHB originally is because PrCs were never intended to be handed out wholesale to any player who wanted to use them to break the system.
It was later when Wizards realized what a cash cow PrCs were that the trouble started but if some whiney player tells you he should be able to take 1 level of XXX because it's allowed in the rules point him to paragraph 3.
|
Well Pathfinder could always put the PrC back into the DM's hands. As originally written a Prestige Class was a DM's tool to create higher level organizations for the PC's to interact with and join, not a candy store for Players to grab goodies out of willy nilly. It was supposed to be something special.
That's my whole idea.
That, and how many organisations can you really join before they suspect you of being a traitor to be messily eliminated ?
My take for my next campaign will be : two base classes, two Prcs Maximum.
|
|
On the other hand, if a player wants some neat class abilities he saw someplace, I'd be inclined to allow swapping these features in an appropriate base class if that's all he wanted. Why take on whole class levels in things that may or may not fit the character concept, or campaign setting for that matter, when it's just a neat ability that you would like to add instead of something else?
Agreed; there are so many supposed PrC abilities, that easily could and should be feats.
Take Death Strike; if this were a feat, with a prereq of Sneak Attack (+3d6), would there be any need for the Assassin PrC? The concept could be covered by a Rogue/Sorceror, with a focus on sneaky spells.
My take for my next campaign will be : two base classes, two Prcs Maximum.
You might want to add "three base classes are allowed only if required to qualify for a specific PrC tied to an organization the character is a member of (i.e., Fochlucan Lyrist) and three PrCs are allowed if all three are 3-5 level PrCs." After all, someone may want to play (or you as the DM may wish the PCs to encounter) "the ultimate knife-fighter" rogue 1/fighter 4/invisible blade 5/streetfighter 5/tempest 5, a "DaVinci-style mechanic/force specialist spellcaster" wizard 7/effigy master 3/argent savant 5/archmage 5, or a "mage-bane" barbarian 1/fighter 6/occult slayer 5/exotic weapon master (spiked chain) 3/reaping mauler 5...
On the other hand, if a player wants some neat class abilities he saw someplace, I'd be inclined to allow swapping these features in an appropriate base class if that's all he wanted. Why take on whole class levels in things that may or may not fit the character concept, or campaign setting for that matter, when it's just a neat ability that you would like to add instead of something else?Agreed; there are so many supposed PrC abilities, that easily could and should be feats.
Personally, the only PrC I'll "dip" is spellsword for the 10% reduction in arcane failure from armor. Thankfully, I don't need to do so with Pathfinder, since it has the Arcane Armor Training (and Arcane Armor Mastery) feat. However, when considering the "signature" abilities of a PrC (Death Attack for assassin, Channel Spell for the already mentioned spellsword, etc.), making them feats cheapens the concept of the prestige class (IMO) and can cause even more power-creep issues, since min/maxers gain the "kewl" power with a feat AND the class ability from whatever class level they are taking.
I might suggest the wording for that rule "Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor for yourself."Whew... what a mouthful, I know it sounds pretty severe but that more or less matches what you suggest. Incidentally it's plagiarized from the 3rd Paragraph on the Prestige Class heading on page 176 of the DMG.
That was before someone figured out how much more money you can make with selling books to players too. :D
Currently, official WotC Books hold over 700 PrCs.
|
|
Another thing to think about is that most GM's will not allow a PrC in because of some ability or combo that they think is abusive without ever actually seeing the PrC/ability/combo come into play.
How about actually trying it out to see what happens first?
You won't know how effective/lame it will be until it is actually played. What I have seen is that it's 'theory' is not as powerful/broken as it's 'practice'.
#2... I don't know a GM that runs the D&D universe, everyone I know runs they're own game or a modified D universe. The roleplaying requirements are usually thrown out the window if they are not in the game but in the books. If Pelor isn't around it can't be a requirement. Or if the assassin's guild isn't around then the same...
That was before someone figured out how much more money you can make with selling books to players too. :D
Currently, official WotC Books hold over 700 PrCs.
Regardless of how many are out there unless they revised the rule somewhere it's still relevant. Obviously the ban stick should be used very sparingly but I think it's completely appropriate where someone is obviously gaming the system.
I'd really hate to see multiclassing totally hamstrung like some people here want to do. Whatever happened to GM approval and adjudication?
I agree, no new rules on PrCs. DMs just need to grow some backbone if their players try to pull a fast one.
Personally, the only PrC I'll "dip" is spellsword for the 10% reduction in arcane failure from armor. Thankfully, I don't need to do so with Pathfinder, since it has the Arcane Armor Training (and Arcane Armor Mastery) feat. However, when considering the "signature" abilities of a PrC (Death Attack for assassin, Channel Spell for the already mentioned spellsword, etc.), making them feats cheapens the concept of the prestige class (IMO) and can cause even more power-creep issues, since min/maxers gain the "kewl" power with a feat AND the class ability from whatever class level they are taking.On the other hand, if a player wants some neat class abilities he saw someplace, I'd be inclined to allow swapping these features in an appropriate base class if that's all he wanted. Why take on whole class levels in things that may or may not fit the character concept, or campaign setting for that matter, when it's just a neat ability that you would like to add instead of something else?Agreed; there are so many supposed PrC abilities, that easily could and should be feats.
Well, cheapening the value of a particular Prestige Class isn't a problem if the PrC isn't even going to be in the campaign anyways. If it is, then the DM would be looking at having the character take levels in the class instead.
Power creep could be an issue of course, but I have this feeling that if a DM is looking directly at what the player wants to add to his character, he can spot it much sooner than just "Yeah, yeah, take levels in Frenzied Bezerker... wait... what are your other classes?".
Basically... what I'm advocating is more communication between players and DMs, and the DM having a greater hand at what the player's character paths are, instead of leaving it to the splatbook builds.
Not so good for RPGA stuff I guess, but I'd think it'd be appropriate for standard tabletop fare.
My point:
First things first.
We have to fix multiclassing in order to make those theurges and eldritch classes obsolete.
THAN, we can rethink the concept of PrestigeClasses which is really needed.
As others posted before, I think one MAJOR aspect of PrC should be the flavor they provide IN COMBINATION with the campaign world.
But woefully, all those splash books really torpeded that.
PrC like the FR Purple Dragon Knight or the Red Wizard of Thay are the way to go.
But either way: Restricting a character to complete one PrC AT A TIME might be a good in between solution.
Dungeon Master's Guide 3.5
Page 176
"Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign."
The rule is allready in place, in print, clearly stated. It can simply be stated again. Wmy muck about with printing additional special rules, restrictions, and clutter when a perfectly good one is right there.
A very large number of prestige classes now are designed to be chosen by the player before the campaign starts (see Drunken Master and Frenzied Berserker). These are still at GM discrestion. If a player wants to takes these classes at the lowest possible level at which he can qualify for it, then that's an issue that the GM and player need to work out together.
Again, printed rule is "GM has discretion." I simply don't see a need for a printed rule beyond that.
But that's just one additional thing I (as a GM) has to worry about when starting a group.
That's just one more PitA I don't need.
But saying that there are no PrC won't be liked either.
But I still say, fix multiclassing, so that most players will stay with the core classes and only those who seek a very special path will PrC-out.
Again, printed rule is "GM has discretion." I simply don't see a need for a printed rule beyond that.
Maybe it wouldn't be too bad to have a sidebar for some of the rules suggestions desribed in this thread to give inexperienced DMs some ideas to work with (and more experienced some new ideas)?
Well, the rule as written is fine for me too.
|
Presumably since there is nothing specifically mentioned about taking them out, they are still in place in accordance with the SRD. There are not references to XP penalties. There are references to XP and level *loss* afaik.-Steve
The SRD has nothing at all on Multiclassing XP penalties. That is part of the PHB but not part of the SRD.
Honestly, I think the PrC dipping problem is fine as it is. For players who want to power play and munchkin then why take away something that makes them happy? If you don't want to power dip you don't have to.
The game is about everyone having fun. Why make it so that some people cannot have the fun they are looking for?
Sure they get broken characters, from one point of view, but not from another.
I'd say this is an area suitable for house rules.
there are so many supposed PrC abilities, that easily could and should be feats.
Can I quote you on this in our next campaign? I've thought of more stuff as well by the way. And it's all good.
Well, it is for my character...
Hang on, should keep this on-topic. I agree with the issue about PrC dipping - any brief look at the CharOps board will show you how rampant it is. I have a character who is guilty of the 2 level paladin dip, but that at least is in character as he is a cleric of Heironeous - in the boards all RP concerns are just chucked. The characters look totally splintered and without focus (except in the game rules they focus on, which isn't the same).
But I also think that changing to feats etc isn't a good thing, as some of the flavour would be lost. To keep it, having a PrC group within which all certain powers of the same type are listed and graded in power, and as a character goes up in that 'flavour' PrC, he choosed from the power at the appropriate level. For instance, for a shadowy type Prc:
1 - cast Shadow spells at +1 caster level or gain +2 inherent bonus to HIS and MS or +2 concealment bonus to AC when in shadows
2 - use Blur 1/day or Darkness 3/day or something else
3 - etc
4 - etc
5 - etc
6 - Hide in Plain Sight or gain Shadow as extra Domain
7 - etc
8 - Teleport Via shadows or permanent Entropic Shield
9 - etc
10 - Hide in Plain Sight whilst not in shadows or permanent Displacement
You get the picture...
Matt
The game is about everyone having fun. Why make it so that some people cannot have the fun they are looking for?
Sure they get broken characters, from one point of view, but not from another.
I'd say this is an area suitable for house rules.
I agree heartily from a 'live and let live' point of view. The problem I see here is that one person's cheese-machine is another's rounded character concept is another's wimpy cannon fodder character.
And they can all be around the same table.
And the DM may not be aware of the power discrepancies until it's too late.
And all of a sudden that paladin/cleric with domain of glory and extra turns and divine feats and weapons that have powers related to charisma and a +5 inherent CHA bonus and a +6 enhancement bonus and a maxed out natural score is a nigh-unstoppable force.
Not that I'd do such a thing, not without checking with my DM first.
Who is very easily swayed (Hi Lee) :-)
The more I think about this, the more I like the old AD&D Multiclassing rules.
Take a class (or some multiclass-combi) and stick to it.
No weird 9th level Fighter who just likes to get one level of druid and *puff*, there you go.
Sure this can be hindered by the GM, but well... I just don't know.
Actually, this way PrestigeClasses get some interesting flavor back, since they would be the exception to this rule.
The more I think about this, the more I like the old AD&D Multiclassing rules.
Take a class (or some multiclass-combi) and stick to it.
No weird 9th level Fighter who just likes to get one level of druid and *puff*, there you go.
Er...you could do exactly that in AD&D, assuming you were a dual-classed human!
|
|
My preferred poison would be to take every PrC ability that I think is neat and worth including in my game and make it into a Feat (or chain of several Feats, for the truly impressive ones).
Those Feats might be hard to acquire, only being taught to those who have certain prerequisite Feats, or go talk to the wizened master on the mountain or whatever, but the whole 'Prestige Class' concept would just go away.
The Core Classes *should* be enough.
Instead of making an Assassin PrC, just whip up a Death Attack Feat or a Use Poison Feat that a PC Rogue can learn. Any Rogue (or Fighter, Scout or Ranger, or whatever other class could meet the requirements for the Feat) could then be an 'assassin.'
Er...you could do exactly that in AD&D, assuming you were a dual-classed human!
Indeed but noone did because it was horrible. You couldn't use your old class until you were higher level in the new class, your THAC0 didn't increase until the new classes THAC0 was higher than the new one. I seem to remember that you could never add levels to your previous class either. I don't know anyone who actually did this option. There might have been a few NPCs with this setup though.
The PrC problem makes me long for the days of 2nd Edition where PrC were nothing more than kits that augmented a class. I wonder if it would be better if they reintroduced the kits and did away with PrC's
With feats and skill points, you don't really need kits anymore.
It mostly comes down to alternative class features, of which many have been published (substitute-levels do exactly the same).
|
|
The PrC problem makes me long for the days of 2nd Edition where PrC were nothing more than kits that augmented a class. I wonder if it would be better if they reintroduced the kits and did away with PrC's
man, I hated kits; race handbooks were even worse - especially the powergamers dream the Elves Handbook and their blade-singers. The skills and powers and combat and tactics made everything even worse.
I just couldn't stand 2nd ed at all I guess.
That being said, - your idea, solientious, could be replicated in party with the use of racial and regional feats. All kits did was move a character along a path/theme from the start - racial and regional feats to showcase a characters' origins may duplicate that same thing - especially as DM, if you assign or allow a regional feat as a "bonus" based on where the player wants his character to be from.
that's what do - to encourage players to think of their characters as having had a past before campaign adventuring.
Robert
"Free for all Multiclassing and Prestige Classing" may be fine in some peoples campaigns and not in others.
But the real question isnt about experienced DMs makine House Rules, we have the knowledge already. Its about New Players and NEW DMs. Any rule that says "Up to DMs discreation" doesnt change the fact it forces New DMs to take something away from a Player that he or she might not like. And gives them NO guidelines on how to do this, why it should be down, and what to say to thier players.
Thier is no foundation for NEW DMs to make a logical discions, only thats its "up to the DM". Thats it. So NEW DMs are forced to find out on thier own whats right and wrong for thier play styles and thier group.... simply through trial and error.
This can and will lead to many destroyed campaigns, hard feelings from other non-optomized characters, and general chaos all around. Now that for me, isnt very fun or exciting. Its hard enough for NEW DMs to begin a career as a DM, so why go farther to stack even more against NEW DMs. This is a game after all and everyone should have fun, this means the DM too.
And inversly this isnt just for DMs, its for players too. Leaving everything up to a NEW DM can go just as wrong. He can restrict things backward to far, because of un educated fear. Restricting players to much is just as bad as letting the go un checked, at least in my book. Balance is the key.
Thier needs to be rules and guidelings, written in black and white in the book for all to see. This not only provides NEW DMs with guidance and reasoning, for which to draw apon. It also gives NEW Players a firm balance to begin learning the rules, and a place to start from. Both Players and DMs can always come together later, after much experience, and make the changes (through House Rules)to the game based on thier play style.
These rules dont have to be hard rules, it doesnt even have to be a single rule. They can have different rules for different levels of playing, as done with the Experience Points to Level system. Anythng is better then nothing that the vacuum of "Its up to the DM" brings your campaign. Thier needs to be a foundation, something strong that helps show the way. If thier is no foundation, then how can any NEW DM come up with a logical "House Rule" for his players.
Pathfinder isnt just for we few who have played for years, after all. Its for the future generations of gamers, and needs to built for them also.
This is sorta personal for me, I know a girl who wanted to DM... very much so. Now shes only player, and refuses to take up the screen ever again. All because of a single player turning a great time amongst friends into a nightmare.
Part of GMing is making tough calls. Do you allow that prestige class knowing it can be easily abused? Do you ban something outright? Do you make unpopular desicions?
One player should never ruin a campaign. If one person absolutely must imbalance the game, then that player doesn't need to be a part of the campaign. They are there to have fun for themselves, not help make the experience fun for everybody. Any player who plays for the sole purpose of personal power and says to hell with the rest of the party shouldn't be in the game in the first place.
A GM is in charge. Period. If players don't like that, and the game collapses, that's sort of too bad for every body. The trick is to understand why it happened. Was it one player who wanted to tweak out his character? Was it the whole group wanting a power game, and you wanted something with deep enriching story? A GM's primary job is to provide the game for the players, and to make sure everybody has fun.
A new GM is taking a big responsibility. Some people simply aren't meant to GM. If they can't deal with the conflicts, the pressure, the story, the need to keep track of every detail, and especially the need to deal with players, then they probably shouldn't GM. They may be bursting with ideas for an amazing campaign. They may want to work through that campaign. But, honestly, if they can't handle it, they shouldn't do it.
Everybody has something in mind when they start up a campaign. Something WILL go wrong. That's how GMing works. I have sympathy for the new GMs starting out, but honestly, not everybody is cut out to handle it. Broad rules and "GM discretion" are part of the game. Most of the game is GM discretion.
Talking with players before hand about their goals is important. Obligating them to certain things may sound kind of not fun, but if they agree to it, they cannot complain later.
I've had...8 character changeups since my most recent campaign started. We've played a total of about 4 sessions. Does this bother me? Not in the least. It doesn't much affect the story, and we are early on enough with little plot development that people can mix it up a bit to find thier niche. I had one player who hated arcane casters. Refused to play them. Jumped from Artificer to Druid, then was thinking of going fighter, when the group allready had 4 other melee classes. Working with that player, I convinced him to roll a Wizard instead. He agreed on the condition that I build it for him. Time consuming and a little obnoxious? Yes. Big yes. I hate building arcane casters. In the fight that followed he was nearly killed several times, none of his spells did much of anything, and I had to be very generous with certain interpretations of the rules. Was it worth it? Yes. Big yes. Everybody had fun. The useless wizard had a blast, because he ALMOST hit something with his elemental ray. His magic missile did JUST enough for the next guy in initiative to drop the enemy with his next hit. The fight was hard. I made it hard so they'd all have to stretch their legs, and work for the win. And they won. Hard fought, lots of positive energy channeling, but everybody was satisfied with the win. Even the players who got hosed on roles and did very little had a blast. The player who barely knew what was going on had fun, because she got to pretend to shank some bad guys. Everything leading up to the encounter told me that it had the potential for utter disaster. I ran with it anyways, confident that my player mix would enjoy it, win or lose, and I was right.
GMing is hard. Being unable to GM isn't a bad thing. Means you get to spend less time book keeping and more time coming up with ways to mess with your GM. As long as people understand that not everybody can do it, things like prestige classes become less of a problem.
Also: This is a handy tool.