|
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.
It was surprisingly easy. I had a 9th level Fighter who changed to become a Wizard. He used a wand in combat until his Wizard level beat his Fighter level, and the exp was coming so fast and furious fighting 9th level monsters alongside the rest of the party that he didn't even manage to use up the wand. It took only a couple sessions to catch back up.
He was the only 1st level Wizard with 55 hit points. :)
|
Felt I needed to weigh in on this discussion. I have always house ruled PrC as the following. You can only have 1. This to me fits the premise behind them the best. However, i do have a proposal for addressing new DMs and players and peoples concerns about that being to restrictive. Since some prestige classes have only 5 lvls, or 3 even, then change the "only 1" rule to this. You have to take 5 lvls of a PrC or all of it, whichever is lower, before changing to a new one. This means that for 3/5 level PrCs, you have to take all of it. For 10 lvl PrCs, you have to take half of it, before you can change to something else.
I understand flexibility. But i agree that new DMs need some guild lines. A good, experienced GM should be able to handle the responsibility of saying "No" once in a while. But new DMs need guild lines.
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
You have toouched upon an idea I've been toying with for awhile - bringing back 'Kits'.
They'd be like a one-level PrC, specifically attached to an organization or group (like PrCs were meant to be), granting just a couple of flavor-benefits. Maybe even a three-level, for Kits that have decent abilities (like the Paragon PrCs in UA). Whichever way the build works, you MUST take all levels in the Kit (although for kits with more then one level, they can be spread out over several levels so as not to be obtrusive). For example, if we turned Purple Dragon Knight into a Kit (as it should be), then there could be a single level taken at the beginning, a 2nd one that must be taken by the time the PC has ten total levels, and a 3rd by the time he has fifteen total levels. This way it forces players to stick with any group they joined, or loose whatever benefits they gained. This could be changed up, so that you must take another level of the Kit within three levels of the first, but sticking with the Kit must be enforced.
Then proper PrCs should be at least five levels, and more like ten.
And we could take this one step further, creating "Epic Paths" a'la 4e by having specific PrCs that depend on taking a combination of other classes (including other PrCs).
In that way, you can have three tiers of PrC (Kits, Prestiges, and Destinies?), simulating the different levels of play.
Anyway, I think that the two different types of PrCs (flavor and power) should be seperated somehow, because all the cool flavor ones people avoid for the better builds.
|
Seems like it would be simpler to emphasize the word "prestige," and just houserule maximum one PrC per character.
and in another thread:
So for me,that means you can only ever have one Prestige Class.... thats it. No exceptions, and to date I've had no complaints.That's a simple and effective houserule, to be sure. The only issue I can find is that it really discourages anyone from taking any of the 5-level (as opposed to 10-level) prestige classes in the "Complete" series, because then their one prestige chance is over with far too quickly.
My solution to PrC dipping was that joining a PrC was, well, prestigious and the character was being afforded the opportunity to do something only "eilte" people get to do. Therefore, the character had to show dedication to the cause by taking only a single PrC or "core" class levels until the character had obtained at least half of the available PrC levels (rounded down). Thus if the character chooses a 10-level PrC, they can take either "core" class levels or levels in their chosen PrC and no other until they had obtained 5 levels in the PrC. For a 5-level PrC, the character needed to take at least two levels in the PrC before choosing another specialty.
This prevented PrC dipping while allowing the character to move on to other PrC's. It also made choosing a PrC more important from a character concept standpoint, because the character could not eventually be "everything to everyone". My players warmed to the idea and it has worked for us for years.
That seems like a pretty good houserule as well, LL (nice to see you again, btw!). In any event, my main point was that I'd prefer that houserules be the default assumption for PrCs... I'd mislike seeing a "one-size-fits-all" official rule.
Hmm... I still like the "Complete the old bevor taking a new PrC" better.
If you take a 10 level PrC, well then go for it!
|
|
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.
Oh, my!
And don't forget how you persuaded him that swapping your Shining Blade BAB for full caster levels was an even trade!
(note to self: bring a bottle of Black Tower before suggesting any character ideas with Lee...).
|
|
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).
I believe it was Pathos (in another thread, about minimum ability score class prerequisites), who brought up the example of a player whose PC started with penalties in Wis and Cha, took 1st level as a Paladin, simply to have Knowledge (religion) as a class skill, then immediately changed alignment, lost his paladinhood, and went on to a prestige class (with that skill as a pre-req), 5 levels earlier than he otherwise could.
Whether this was an efficient build is irrelevant, the point was obviously that the temple should have recognised his total lack of willpower and personality, taken him aside, and said "Son, you're never gonna be a Paladin".
And the same should be the case with other classes (base and prestige). If someone's going to train you, then what's in it for them? Some organisations are not the sort of people you want to piss off. You don't leave the Assassins' Guild, except in a box.
I believe it was Pathos (in another thread, about minimum ability score class prerequisites), who brought up the example of a player whose PC started with penalties in Wis and Cha, took 1st level as a Paladin, simply to have Knowledge (religion) as a class skill, then immediately changed alignment, lost his paladinhood, and went on to a prestige class (with that skill as a pre-req), 5 levels earlier than he otherwise could.
I think I would have to have a serious talking to with a character who did this, it's obviously a deliberate thing and for a player to plan a character based on an alignment change is IMO total roleplaying failure.
|
I believe it was Pathos (in another thread, about minimum ability score class prerequisites), who brought up the example of a player whose PC started with penalties in Wis and Cha, took 1st level as a Paladin, simply to have Knowledge (religion) as a class skill, then immediately changed alignment, lost his paladinhood, and went on to a prestige class (with that skill as a pre-req), 5 levels earlier than he otherwise could.I think I would have to have a serious talking to with a character who did this, it's obviously a deliberate thing and for a player to plan a character based on an alignment change is IMO total roleplaying failure.
ahh come on Dennis don't be too hard on the guy.
I'd allow it.
Then have his former diety strike him down dead!
|
Whether this was an efficient build is irrelevant, the point was obviously that the temple should have recognised his total lack of willpower and personality, taken him aside, and said "Son, you're never gonna be a Paladin".
I think I would have to have a serious talking to with a character who did this, it's obviously a deliberate thing and for a player to plan a character based on an alignment change is IMO total roleplaying failure.
With all due respect - I completely agree with both of you - and would be of the same mindset.
HOWEVER you make the OPs arguement for him. Neither of your suggestions are "RULES" they are not listed, discussed, exampled, or hinted at in the RAW. As written, this players behavior is allowed.
However, there are many DMs who are novices, or do not possess the creative wherewithal as to how to respond, or IF there should even be a response.
A suggestion/hint/rule/DM'sAdvice/variant/optional rule written and in place for such acts is exactly what he was requesting.
I'm not advocating that "Only One prestige class" should ever be allowed by all D&D groups out there as a hard-fast rule - but I do totally agree that we can't just assume that everyone that is going to try their hands as a DM of this product will have the same level of comfort and expertise at doing it as either of us do.
Including a side-bar definition of such things in explaining what the "reson" or otherwise intent of a PrC or such or the purpose and cautioning DMs to be too liberal with Player Class choices could lead to unbalanced builds is a good idea for such a case.
Robert
Munchkin player versus new DM is a no win situation. Rules are not going to help the DM out, the munchkin will overwhelm the new DM by sheer tonnage of books. The only defense a new DM could have is limiting the game to Core only and even then it's probably a one sided battle.
People seem to forget that in the DMG it's perfectly clear that PrCs are OPTIONAL at the DM's discretion (not the players).
<snip>I do totally agree that we can't just assume that everyone that is going to try their hands as a DM of this product will have the same level of comfort and expertise at doing it as either of us do.
Including a side-bar definition of such things in explaining what the "reson" or otherwise intent of a PrC or such or the purpose and cautioning DMs to be too liberal with Player Class choices could lead to unbalanced builds is a good idea for such a case.
I couldn't agree more. IMO the sidebars and tips in the DM-only sections of books are the real meat & potatoes of playing the game. It's great that all of us have learned thru trial and error, but for new DMs it would be even better if they can learn from our trial and error.
With all due respect - I completely agree with both of you - and would be of the same mindset.
HOWEVER you make the OPs arguement for him. Neither of your suggestions are "RULES" they are not listed, discussed, exampled, or hinted at in the RAW. As written, this players behavior is allowed.
However, there are many DMs who are novices, or do not possess the creative wherewithal as to how to respond, or IF there should even be a response.
A suggestion/hint/rule/DM'sAdvice/variant/optional rule written and in place for such acts is exactly what he was requesting.
I'm not advocating that "Only One prestige class" should ever be allowed by all D&D groups out there as a hard-fast rule - but I do totally agree that we can't just assume that everyone that is going to try their hands as a DM of this product will have the same level of comfort and expertise at doing it as either of us do.
Including a side-bar definition of such things in explaining what the "reson" or otherwise intent of a PrC or such or the purpose and cautioning DMs to be too liberal with Player Class choices could lead to unbalanced builds is a good idea for such a case.
Robert
Personally, I feel there should be a rule in place (whatever that rule may be... you all know my preference), with a sidebar stating that it's the DM's perogative to explore other options and maybe listing what some of those options are. If the goal is to appeal to new gamers, and try and grow the 3P market, it's best to have a rule that won't be as likely to get a novice DM into trouble later on.
-Steve
Personally, I feel there should be a rule in place (whatever that rule may be... you all know my preference), with a sidebar stating that it's the DM's perogative to explore other options and maybe listing what some of those options are. If the goal is to appeal to new gamers, and try and grow the 3P market, it's best to have a rule that won't be as likely to get a novice DM into trouble later on.
Well actually with regards to PrCs there is a rule which says it's the DM's responsibility to introduce PrCs into the game.
With regards to the game in general, I wouldn't be opposed to a sidebar saying that any sources outside the core book are optional and that the GM is the ultimate arbitrator of whether any additional sources are used and should be careful to introduce new material.
Well actually with regards to PrCs there is a rule which says it's the DM's responsibility to introduce PrCs into the game.
With regards to the game in general, I wouldn't be opposed to a sidebar saying that any sources outside the core book are optional and that the GM is the ultimate arbitrator of whether any additional sources are used and should be careful to introduce new material.
I was referring to more of a mechanical rule rather then general suggestive guidelines, with a sidebar exploring other options and more generally permissive usages.
-Steve
|
I've had a similar problem in some of my games but it wasn't just PrC dipping that was the issue, it was also base class dipping. One of the players in my group has a habit of choosing a level or two of almost everything. Halfling Rouge 2 Fighter 2 Wizard(conjurer) 2 Sorcerer 1 Monk 2 ECT...and then he would choose a PrC that fit what ever he might have become by that point. Then with half the other PC's cherry picking PrC's it got quite annoying. So we came up with this rule: No more then three Classes PrC or otherwise and if you did need to or want to take another class then you used a feat. Seemed to have worked and allowed a lot of flavor without dampening the players choices to much.
While late to the discussion... my fix for "PRC Dipping" is to allow only 1 PRC to be taken. You can take a second only after you complete the PRC in question.
I was referring to more of a mechanical rule rather then general suggestive guidelines, with a sidebar exploring other options and more generally permissive usages.
Allow me to re-iterate that I'm against a standard mechanical rule. Each referee should have the freedom to regulate PrCs as he or she chooses, based on his or her particular campaign world. That said, I'd have no problem with an added statement beginning, "In Golarion, the default rule is assumed to be..."
While late to the discussion... my fix for "PRC Dipping" is to allow only 1 PRC to be taken. You can take a second only after you complete the PRC in question.
While I am in general against using rules to patch faulty PrCs this is the best of the bunch (and I know it's been mentioned before).
That said, if the DM isn't going to run the game then someone else is. Single levels are a problem with PrCs, there are plenty of others and if the DM doesn't pay attention to what's going in to his game he will pay for it regardless of the rules.
|
|
I was referring to more of a mechanical rule rather then general suggestive guidelines, with a sidebar exploring other options and more generally permissive usages.Allow me to re-iterate that I'm against a standard mechanical rule. Each referee should have the freedom to regulate PrCs as he or she chooses, based on his or her particular campaign world. That said, I'd have no problem with an added statement beginning, "In Golarion, the default rule is assumed to be..."
I agree Kirth - no hard fast rule. And I'm not even soliciting that "In Golarion there's default rule...."
The important part IMO is not that there's a default rule - but a suggestion! I think it's important for the players or DM guide suggests that they recommend limiting it to one for the purpose that PrCs are meant to fill an elite role yada yada; but most importantly WHY that is - because potentially allowing more than one could disrupt the balance of a well-designed game.
Just stating what a rule is - is not as important as WHY the suggestion is made.
Dennis Da Ogre said, "Well actually with regards to PrCs there is a rule which says it's the DM's responsibility to introduce PrCs into the game. "
Thats fine and all - but if I'm a relatively inexperienced DM, etc, and I saw that line, what does that really mean? "Here - you're allowed to take levels in any of these - I'm suppose to introduce them to you."
Thats not the same thing as "PrCs are meant to represent an elite organization or skill-set that PCs can hope to achieve one day. DMs ar encouraged to find a niche for any of these he feels would serve a distinct purpose in his campaign and present them as options. Care should be taken to find those the make the most sense to the DMs ideals for his campaign and should feel free to disregard any that don't. He does not have to include any PrCs that he feels are not in the spirit of his campaign idea; or any PrCs at all for that matter. There is no specific rule about how many PrCs any one PC can take so long as he meets the prerequisites - however DMs allowing more than one can risk characters becoming too powerful too quickly which can disrupt the balance of the campaign, but there is nothing stopping a DM from allowing more than one if that is his desire. Ultimately, the DM is the ultimate arbiter as to how many PrCs a PC is allowed to take (if any). and should make this known to the players up front."
That explains cause and effect, and explains the philosophy of the use of the PrCs, along with the potential for abuse and consequences thereof. This paints a much clearer picture to someone who isn't sure exactly what to do, and why to do it (or not do it if cautioned against it).
As Laithoron said, "but for new DMs it would be even better if they can learn from our trial and error."
Absolutely!
Robert
Several thousands of dollars of books later, I have learned that the most fun my one group has playing is Core Only Rules.
No confusion, no munchkin, no time lost over confusing abilities. Everyone knows where their PCs stand.
I do like a few outside sources but they wouldn't fill a single 400 page book. In general role playing is about what you put into it, not what you pull out of some book. If it were up to me I would say screw all the splat books and just worry about making it compatible with adventures.
|
|
While late to the discussion... my fix for "PRC Dipping" is to allow only 1 PRC to be taken. You can take a second only after you complete the PRC in question.That's exactly what I do IMC
It's still not enough though, same abuse can be done with feats and magic items
BUT it's easier to become a "master" of a small bit of books/information than a large amount. Thus, the less info you try to work with, the better prepared you can be to address any potential abuse - instead of being blind-sided by some obscure combination that you hadn't considered that clever players invariably find a way to combine a bunch of aspects from all the various sources one allows....
Robert
|
|
Whether this was an efficient build is irrelevant, the point was obviously that the temple should have recognised his total lack of willpower and personality, taken him aside, and said "Son, you're never gonna be a Paladin".
With all due respect - I completely agree with both of you - and would be of the same mindset.
HOWEVER you make the OPs arguement for him. Neither of your suggestions are "RULES" they are not listed, discussed, exampled, or hinted at in the RAW. As written, this players behavior is allowed.
Oh, I agree. It still needs to be in the rules, in a prominent place, as an easily-noticed sidebar suggestion, with the reasons why. I wasn't saying it shouldn't.
I was simply reminded of the PC in question after the example of Paladin-dipping was mentioned, as I remembered it being a particularly bad example, since the PC in question would never have been able to use half the Paladin abilities,and should have been refused entry from the start.
Allow me to re-iterate that I'm against a standard mechanical rule. Each referee should have the freedom to regulate PrCs as he or she chooses, based on his or her particular campaign world. That said, I'd have no problem with an added statement beginning, "In Golarion, the default rule is assumed to be..."
The game is governed by mechanical rules for many of its aspects. I personally think this should be one of them. If needed, there can be other options listed, but I feel that due to the degree of potential abuse, and the need to address the needs of novice DMs, it's better to start with a rule rather then a statement.
-Steve
The game is governed by mechanical rules for many of its aspects. I personally think this should be one of them. If needed, there can be other options listed, but I feel that due to the degree of potential abuse, and the need to address the needs of novice DMs, it's better to start with a rule rather then a statement.
This is an area in which one rule doesn't necessarily make sense for all game worlds, though, and for which each DM already has a preferred rule (most of which are different). I personally would not add a mechanical rule to the core rulebook saying "dwarves cannot be wizards or sorcerers because that archetype doesn't work for my campaign world." Same deal with PrCs in general. I'll echo Robert's comment that, for novice DMs, some examples and the reasoning behind them would be better than trying to fit all possible worlds under one rule.
This is an area in which one rule doesn't necessarily make sense for all game worlds, though, and for which each DM already has a preferred rule (most of which are different). I personally would not add a mechanical rule to the core rulebook saying "dwarves cannot be wizards or sorcerers because that archetype doesn't work for my campaign world." Same deal with PrCs in general. I'll echo Robert's comment that, for novice DMs, some examples and the reasoning behind them would be better than trying to fit all possible worlds under one rule.
Indeed, and while I personally don't care for 'munchkins' I know there are groups who love it and try to outdo each other. Who are we to say that is any less legitimate a form of gaming? For that matter, maybe there is a non-munchkin reason for trying to do what you suggest doing. Heck maybe the guy with the paladin wanted to play a broken hero who was struggling against his baser nature and trying to redeem himself.
Ultimately D&D is NOT governed by a set of rules, it's governed by a DM. If that DM is not up to saying no when a player tries to pull a fast one then he's going to wind up with footprints all over his back in any case.
One of the players in my group has a habit of choosing a level or two of almost everything. Halfling Rouge 2 Fighter 2 Wizard(conjurer) 2 Sorcerer 1 Monk 2 ECT...and then he would choose a PrC that fit what ever he might have become by that point. Then with half the other PC's cherry picking PrC's it got quite annoying.
BAB +5 (+6 w/size bonus), Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +8, +1d6 Sneak Attack, Eveasion, 2 bonus feats, some 0- and 1st-level arcane spells (both prepared and spontaneous), unarmed/unarmored attacks and defense, and a few other minor abilities at 9th level? What was the character good at? Considering that a rogue 3/wizard 5/arcane trickster 1 (BAB +4, Fort +2, Ref +6, Will +7) would probably be a better rogue AND spellcaster, he can be out-fought by a fighter 9 or monk 9, etc., it sounds like the player is trying to do a little bit of everything instead of concentrating on a central character concept.
Cherry picking some PrCs can be a concern, but there are diminishing returns WRT qualifying prerequisites to most of them. Limiting the available PrCs to match the flavor of the campaign world (or just limiting by allowed supplements) is usually enough to cut down on that behavior.
|
|
I was thinking recently, along related lines of PrC is feat-combos.
How do people feel about allowing the player to choose one splatbook from which to build their character (possibly adding another book at some levels).
I get the feeling this may address some balance issues while still providing customization ("aww, I really want a Races of Stone dwarf"). Most of the PrCs/feats seem balanced within their book, it is the combos that can kill things.
Thoughts? Would your players find this enough?
|
|
Allow me to re-iterate that I'm against a standard mechanical rule. Each referee should have the freedom to regulate PrCs as he or she chooses, based on his or her particular campaign world. That said, I'd have no problem with an added statement beginning, "In Golarion, the default rule is assumed to be..."The game is governed by mechanical rules for many of its aspects. I personally think this should be one of them. If needed, there can be other options listed, but I feel that due to the degree of potential abuse, and the need to address the needs of novice DMs, it's better to start with a rule rather then a statement.
-Steve
To be fair, the mechanical rule in the Core Books is "no PrCs unless the DM says otherwise".
Of course, I don't let my players read the DMG anyway!
And don't forget how you persuaded him that swapping your Shining Blade BAB for full caster levels was an even trade!
(note to self: bring a bottle of Black Tower before suggesting any character ideas with Lee...).
Actually, I argued that I was dropping improved cleric turn undead prowess for the 'blade' abilities that they got. There's more than one way to skin a rabbit...