Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SirTodd 01-25-07, 11:47 AM	I know it can be extremely fun to multiclass all over the place. This can create characters with powerfull abilities. The rules make it easy to build stronger characters by such multiclassing. I feel the old 'Single Class' character has been left behind. So I came up with a way to breathe new life into a respected tradition of older editions: the single class character. Basically if a new character wants to play as a single classed character (never able to switch classes ever, not even once they go epic), then I allow them to Gestalt into their race's favored class only. In the case of 'any' favaored class (like humans get) the decision can't be switched arround. For example: A new player wants to create a human wizard. He foresees his character as a devoted worshiper of Mystra, so he takes Cleric as his gestalt. For the entire time the character is played he will be locked in as a gestalt (wizard/cleric). He can never switch classes and never select a PrC. But his character should stand strong next to his ally who has a number of classes including a couple PrCs which grant this ally abilities his single classed friend will never have access to. But in exchange the single classer will have full spellcasting in two classes. What do you all think? Is this too much? I was hoping it would produce a balance in the game between multiclassers and single classers. Although I haven't had the opportunity to playtest it yet.
Stormbrand 01-25-07, 12:04 PM	First of all, gestalts are not single class, so this is counterproductive. Second, why bother? Why do you need to favour single class characters? Prestige classes is part of character evolution, such as the specialist conjurer becoming a Thaumaturge, or Cavalier for the mounted warrior. These classes help define the character further, as they help distinguish the Purple Dragon Knights from most other warriors for example. Third, you render Mystic Thuerge, Eldritch Knight & Arcane Trickster obselete this way. Fourth, "may never change classes and never take a PrC." How is that anything other than killing fun? What if it becomes appropriate later on? Why cannot the player customise his character as he goes up in levels? We all adjust in small degrees during play. All in all, I think it is a very bad idea. Don't do it.
WackyOne 01-25-07, 01:00 PM	Look at the "newer" classes (Dragonfire Adept, Spirit Shaman, Duskblade to name those I find more "single classish"). You *want* to stay in those until high level (the Adept is very playable, and there isn't a single PrC specific for them, the Duskblade has a very strong ability at 13th, and its own merging of arcane and physical might - it loses out when prestiging, the Spirit Shaman even has good abilities at 19th!). That's, for me, the way to rebalance single classes: make them more attractive, with more powerful, if diluited, abilities. Kind of like the Rogue special abilities at high level. Everyone wants them, and many PrCs for Rogues give them out - or the basic Rogue would be better off than the PrC!
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 01-25-07, 01:05 PM	I don't have a problem with the idea of wanting to make single-classed characters just as viable as multiclass ones. It seems like a good idea to me; multiclassing should be an option in itself, not a given in which the options are how and when to do it. But I'm not liking the execution here. First, as already pointed out, gestalt is, by definition, multiclassing. So it's not the answer. If anything, this will make multiclassing more attractive than single-classing -- why make a multiclass fighter/cleric when I can make a gestalt fighter/cleric just by agreeing to play a human, half-elf or dwarf? But my main issue is that your system assumes that every player will make this decision at character creation and never decide to change it. If I'm playing a cleric, and at level 6 I decide I'd like to be a little more effective in a stand-up fight, I might choose to add a level of fighter even if my plan at character creation was to make a single-class cleric. If the campaign progresses to level 10 and then a new book is introduced with a prestige class that's perfect for the character I'm playing, I might decide I want it even though I didn't even know it existed when the character was first rolled up. If you're looking to reward players for sticking with a single class all the way to 20, I can get behind it. But maybe it should be more along the lines of some benefit they gain as long as they only have one class and lose if they switch it out -- maybe a reverse of the standard multiclassing XP penalty? Not sure if that's the best idea, it might have campaign-wide implications as far as advancement rates between party members, but it makes sense in respect to established precidents -- if splitting your focus too much causes you to advance more slowly, then focusing on one class exclusively would let you dedicate yourself fully to becoming the best (insert class here) you can be... Maybe take the numbers down a notch, but make them a little bigger if it's your race's favored class? +5% XP as long as you only have one class, +10% if it's your race's favored class? Or maybe just make your racial favored class not count either way, just like for multiclassing penalties?
Sphyre 01-25-07, 01:19 PM	I only play single class classes. The catch is that I play casters most of the time. I'll play melee if it's ToB or I am assured I'll get the appropriate treasure for my level. Melee needs treasure, Casters like treasure. As previous posters have stated, the newer base classes are more "single classish" than the older ones. The reason why PrCing is "so good" is because the base classes that they are PrCing off suck or the PrC grants more power than the base class (like caster prestige classes give up very little) I'm sure that if you gave people who don't PrC into gestalt with their race's favored class, you will get the people, like me, who know how to play a single class all the way through to 20 effectively significantly more power than the people who go into Prestige classes. In fact I could just pick any gestalt option I want, find a race that has that as a favored class, and pick it (or better yet, be human and get free gestalting!) Woo, can I play in your campaign? :devil:
ZombieDragon 01-25-07, 07:21 PM	We almost always gestalt. Not because it is better, uber, l33t, or broken, but because we have a lack of gamers. Our current rule is : one side is straight 20 base, and the other is used for party needs or to make the base better. The idea of filling in the other side solely on the idea of party roles makes weak characters. The more survivable option is to use the other side as a long drawn out Prc. Prc BaB are still used so the first few levels are generally a skill monkey level, divine caster level (wands), etc. Dual base 20 could be an idea but it tends to make stats MAD. I personally like to keep starting stats minimal. It also might run into the dreaded 'New Book Syndrome'. When new base classes come out that look fun/great players tend to frown on their current PC. Run a campaign with your intended ideas. I'd wager players will change the way the look and massive multiclassing. Worse that happens is you come up with a better way of handling things and just scrap it and start over.
sigma999 01-25-07, 09:26 PM	Try point-based d20 variants.
Lecen_of_Mitran 01-26-07, 12:31 AM	First of all, gestalts are not single class, so this is counterproductive. Second, why bother? Why do you need to favour single class characters? Prestige classes is part of character evolution, such as the specialist conjurer becoming a Thaumaturge, or Cavalier for the mounted warrior. These classes help define the character further, as they help distinguish the Purple Dragon Knights from most other warriors for example. Third, you render Mystic Thuerge, Eldritch Knight & Arcane Trickster obselete this way. Fourth, "may never change classes and never take a PrC." How is that anything other than killing fun? What if it becomes appropriate later on? Why cannot the player customise his character as he goes up in levels? We all adjust in small degrees during play. All in all, I think it is a very bad idea. Don't do it. I think thatīs not really his problem. I mean, one thing is a player that makes a Paladin/Cavalier or a Sorcerer/Frostmage, another completely different is a half orc barbarian 4/Fighter 2/PsiWarrior 2/Frienzied Berseker 5/Exotic Weapon Master 2. But indeed, making the reward a Gestalt character, it doensīt make much sense.
Kintara 01-26-07, 01:36 AM	I like single class builds. Perhaps its the cleanliness of form I see in them, or the straight-forwardness. I even enjoy Fighter 20, and I don't care about taking that last "useless" level of Rogue. I think that's one reason I've enjoyed the proliferation of new core classes. Personally, I don't think the balance differential is inherently wide enough to justify such a big change, and it really defeats the point of why I go single-classed in the first place. If you want to see more single class characters, then simply suggest to the players that they should do that, or make it a ground rule for the campaign if you really want to. If you really want to reward them for going single classed, maybe offering a higher point buy would work better, or perhaps a bonus feat or extra skill points/class skills (to represent their "exceptional dedication"). Edit: I suppose it's worth mentioning that I also think that prestige classes should be well controlled by the DM, and silly multiclassing efforts should be similarly curtailed. Character Optimization builds with long strings of single level dips and short detours through PrCs are more amusing mechanical artifacts than something people should play, in my opinion.
SirTodd 01-26-07, 02:25 AM	Perhaps I should explain In my group I have two guys who LOVE to get lots of classes with tons of synergy. By high level they have obscene saves and are unparalleled in their field of expertise. I could restrict multi-classing... but that just removes a part of what makes the game fun for these guys. I also have another guy who likes to play a straight class all the way to 20. But by high level this guy is SO underpowered compared to the others that I have a tough time scaling fights. Make them tough enough for the multi-classers and the single classer gets killed. Make them a challenge for the single classer and often times the single classer won't even get his first action before the multi-classers have killed the enemy. I want to make the game fun for the single classer without penalizing the guys who love their elaborate multi-class builds. I know Gestalt is a multi-class option... but when you tie it down to two base classes that don't change, then it very much resembles a single class (with some extra kick added). You get the same skill points and HD and BAB every level. And a standard uncomplicated progression of abilities. Many of you sound like you don't like the option... but what else can I do without overly restricting everyones fun? Someone suggested extra XP for the single classer. But at 5% or 10% by high level (using the standard XP tables) it won't make any difference. You can get up to 40% extra XP just from being a level behind the group (again using the standard tables). The bonus feats idea might work... but I worry it won't be enough.
Kintara 01-26-07, 03:23 AM	Well, honestly, I doubt that it's the fact that the player is making a single class character that's the problem. It's what he's doing with this single class character. Really, what you're looking for is a way to make this one player more competitive with the other players, but it doesn't sound like this other player wants to play the character optimization game. My suggestion still stands, have the other players tone back their optimization habits. And furthermore, let the other players help this other guy make more optimized choices. Strike a balance. That will be better for the game, in my opinion, than trying to sculpt house rules that please everyone. What is each player playing specifically, by the way?
Lecen_of_Mitran 01-26-07, 09:36 AM	Perhaps I should explain In my group I have two guys who LOVE to get lots of classes with tons of synergy. By high level they have obscene saves and are unparalleled in their field of expertise. I could restrict multi-classing... but that just removes a part of what makes the game fun for these guys. I also have another guy who likes to play a straight class all the way to 20. But by high level this guy is SO underpowered compared to the others that I have a tough time scaling fights. Make them tough enough for the multi-classers and the single classer gets killed. Make them a challenge for the single classer and often times the single classer won't even get his first action before the multi-classers have killed the enemy. I want to make the game fun for the single classer without penalizing the guys who love their elaborate multi-class builds. I know Gestalt is a multi-class option... but when you tie it down to two base classes that don't change, then it very much resembles a single class (with some extra kick added). You get the same skill points and HD and BAB every level. And a standard uncomplicated progression of abilities. Many of you sound like you don't like the option... but what else can I do without overly restricting everyones fun? Someone suggested extra XP for the single classer. But at 5% or 10% by high level (using the standard XP tables) it won't make any difference. You can get up to 40% extra XP just from being a level behind the group (again using the standard tables). The bonus feats idea might work... but I worry it won't be enough. Have you tryied to tell these players the following: "Ok guys. From now on, once you enter in a Prestige class, you have to go all the way ītil the end with it. Or something similar."
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 01-26-07, 05:10 PM	Many of you sound like you don't like the option... but what else can I do without overly restricting everyones fun? Someone suggested extra XP for the single classer. But at 5% or 10% by high level (using the standard XP tables) it won't make any difference. You can get up to 40% extra XP just from being a level behind the group (again using the standard tables). The bonus feats idea might work... but I worry it won't be enough. Well, maybe the bonus XP isn't the best idea; it was just something off the top of my head. But my underlying point remains: Don't force a player to choose between a single- or multi-class build at character generation. If you're going to reward single-classing, do so in a way that can be easily and fairly removed should the player decide later on that he does want that second class after all. If you give a player a bonus feat because he says he wants to play a rogue all the way up to level 20, that's great, but what happens if he decides shadowdancer looks like fun eight sessions into the campaign? The only options are to take away the feat retroactively (wha...? I had Combat Reflexes, but now I don't?) or tell him, "no, you can't multiclass because you didn't call it before we started," and neither of those seems fair to the player. Well, honestly, I doubt that it's the fact that the player is making a single class character that's the problem. It's what he's doing with this single class character. Really, what you're looking for is a way to make this one player more competitive with the other players, but it doesn't sound like this other player wants to play the character optimization game. Quoted for truth. If a player is the type who likes to optimize, they'll find a way. If a player is the type who doesn't like to optimize (or isn't very good at it), they won't. Add in all the limits or rewards you want, some people are just going to be better (by talent, by choice, or by both) at making the numbers work for them. Let's try the bonus feat approach again: If a player is an optimizer, chances are they've already figured out how to make a pretty effective character within the rules as normal. They don't need any extra feats, because they've already squeezed so much juice out of the ones they already get. If a player isn't an optimizer, chances are the extra feat(s) aren't going to raise them up much in the power curve anyway, because they aren't going to use the feat to make the character more powerful, they're going to pick another feat because they like it, numbers be damned. And in this case, multiclassing isn't even necessarily the problem. A 1st-level human fighter using nothing but feats from the PHB is going to be more of a threat in combat when created by an optimizer than a non-optimizer, because the optimizer is going to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, while the non-optimizer might decide he likes Two-Weapon Fighting, Blind-Fight and Skill Focus (butterfly collecting). Neither way is any more valid as a play style than the other, but you're definitely going to notice a difference during a fight, and that's just because of the gap in character generation styles. It's not necessarily something that you can (or should) change. If this rift is really creating problems for your group, I think the answer might be a non-rules solution. Talk to your players. See if the optimizers might be willing to tone it down a notch or two. Or maybe they could help the non-optimizer bring his character's power level up to something closer to theirs through more effective feat selection. Depending on the specific classes involved, maybe you could give the non-optimizer more chances to have the spotlight outside of combat -- you know, the old "give the bard something to countersong, give the rogue some traps to disable, give the guy with maxed out Knowledge (history) some historically-based puzzles to figure out (a la The Da Vinci Code?)" approach. All that said, I still think there's some merit to rewarding devotion to a single class. I just don't know that anyone's hit on the specifics of what that reward should be just yet.
Kintara 01-26-07, 08:53 PM	I think Galstaf mentioned something that should be considered a little. "Optimization" is a measure of taking objectively better options, and a measure of knowing what will be important and specializing to it. Chances are that even the least optimized character is "optimized" to shine in some ways. I think it's always worth it to look at the players' character sheets and read them as guides about what those players want to do in the game. Nothing is just color, even if they tell you as much. If they take an oddball profession or craft skill, for instance, then they'll almost certainly enjoy an opportunity to make use of it. And the same goes for the character that has taken feats or other abilities that seem a little over-specialized or unusual. Edit: Also, optimized builds sometimes have key flaws in them that cause them a lot of hell if you exploit them. Weapon specialists flounder without their weapons. Mages of various stripes will struggle against certain monsters. Etc.. Don't be afraid to cause them a little hell by poking them where it hurts on occassion. It ends up making the game fun for them because it forces them to improvise.
cthascott 01-26-07, 09:26 PM	If you don't want to add on extra abilities to the classes that your player is taking 20 straight levels of, then reward him/her with bonus feats, extra skill points, or maxed out hp. All of these suggestions don't take anything away from the other players and don't disrupt the flow of your players 20 level base class, they simply make him/her a better version of that base class. Hope I helped. Peace. CthaS
Wiz_Eldrick 01-26-07, 10:29 PM	I know this isn't precisely "on topic" (and was already touched on by Kintar), but it certainly does seem like a great many people have decided that PrCs are an "open player option", and that's that. I THOUGHT these things were entirely up to the DM... and frequently, they have a great deal of campaign signficance. If you have players wanting a Prc that makes them "really cool", but they don't want to join the organization to which the PrC belongs... (because they already belong to three others ;) ), that organization (and thus the PrC) doesn't exist in your campaign world. I'm oversimplifying... but still... enough with the prestigarrea already. :)
Magrus 01-26-07, 11:05 PM	Simple: Dissallow switching PrC's before you end up completing them. That means if you enter into a 10 level PrC at 5th, you are eligable to switch to a new one upon reaching 16th level. Kills that dream right quick for the player.
Seerow 01-26-07, 11:19 PM	If you want a single class to be viable, try y'know making the classes worthwhile to take to the end.
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 01-27-07, 01:01 AM	Simple: Dissallow switching PrC's before you end up completing them. That means if you enter into a 10 level PrC at 5th, you are eligable to switch to a new one upon reaching 16th level. Kills that dream right quick for the player. And how is that a good thing? Unless I'm badly mistaken, idea here isn't to punish players for using all the options at their disposal to create characters that function well, it's to make single-class characters just as desirable and fun to play as those well-oiled machines they're teamed up with. I'm not sure "killing dreams" should ever be the answer. And by the way, multiclassing includes taking multiple base classes too. Why all the PrC hate?
Lecen_of_Mitran 01-27-07, 08:41 AM	And how is that a good thing? Unless I'm badly mistaken, idea here isn't to punish players for using all the options at their disposal to create characters that function well, it's to make single-class characters just as desirable and fun to play as those well-oiled machines they're teamed up with. I'm not sure "killing dreams" should ever be the answer. And by the way, multiclassing includes taking multiple base classes too. Why all the PrC hate? He could just do something like: "Once you enter in prestige class X, you have to go al the way ītil de end with it. All 10 lvls. No dipping. Then, you can pick another class. Good Luck."
Ghenesh 01-27-07, 09:46 AM	I also dislike the idea of diminishing the options for the players, but i would like to see less munchkinsm on the game, let's face it, heave multiclassing it's always a seek for system-wise power and all the others features of the character are just excuses to justify this crave for power mechanics, you can fluff all you like about this but in real game it's always like this. When you go from concept to mechanics it's very easy to fill the role in a single class, there are more than 30 out there and that's plenty... but, when you go from mechanics to concept the character loses a lot, cause the background and many of the roleplaying desicions have to justify your mechanical choices. So, as a DM i don't stop a player for multiclassing like crazy, not even for making a excuse background, that's their choice... but i reward those who make their whole concept with a single class cause they often grow fond of their concept and that makes roleplaying more emotional (and that's even better than good roleplaying). As a note i base all my comments on my gaming experience (as everyone should), that's not really much, only about 6 years, but i have found that optimizers and munchkins (cause they are not the same... most of the time) get easily bored of their characters and tend to change it often, that hampers the game! Although i have 2 houserules that attempt to balance multiclassed characters with single classed characters: - Good Save is [ ( Class Level ) / 2 ] + 1. - 20 levels Base classes gain some extra bonus feats beyond level 10th (usually 2... except Sorcerer and Fighter that gain 3; and Archivist, Cleric and Druid that gain 1)
nonsi 01-27-07, 10:13 AM	I know it can be extremely fun to multiclass all over the place. This can create characters with powerfull abilities. The rules make it easy to build stronger characters by such multiclassing. I feel the old 'Single Class' character has been left behind. So I came up with a way to breathe new life into a respected tradition of older editions: the single class character. Basically if a new character wants to play as a single classed character (never able to switch classes ever, not even once they go epic), then I allow them to Gestalt into their race's favored class only. In the case of 'any' favaored class (like humans get) the decision can't be switched arround. For example: A new player wants to create a human wizard. He foresees his character as a devoted worshiper of Mystra, so he takes Cleric as his gestalt. For the entire time the character is played he will be locked in as a gestalt (wizard/cleric). He can never switch classes and never select a PrC. But his character should stand strong next to his ally who has a number of classes including a couple PrCs which grant this ally abilities his single classed friend will never have access to. But in exchange the single classer will have full spellcasting in two classes. What do you all think? Is this too much? I was hoping it would produce a balance in the game between multiclassers and single classers. Although I haven't had the opportunity to playtest it yet. Returning glory to the base classes without Gestalt: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=773897
Seerow 01-27-07, 03:23 PM	If by returning glory you mean make spellcasters even more broken than ever, sure.
Tyler Do'Urden 01-27-07, 04:59 PM	I changed the way favored class works. Instead of imposing an XP penalty when you multiclass too much, I award an XP bonus for each level of your favored class you posess. If you have more than one favored class, the bonus is based on whichever one is higher level. This one change eliminates the adversarial nature of the multiclassing rules and it frees up a lot of choices for the players that would otherwise be unfeasible while at the same time giving a very powerful reason to stay single-classed at high levels. Best of all, gameplay is exactly the same; there's nothing to add or change like their would be with free gestalts or extra feats. They just level up faster than their peers. Just putting it out there.
theotherdraxen 01-27-07, 07:42 PM	Many of you sound like you don't like the option... but what else can I do without overly restricting everyones fun? Well, what does this non-multi-classer like to play? Melee-types? Get Tome of Battle. Spellcaster types? No fix needed for CoDzilla, but for the others you could hand out some of the full spellcasting PrC benefits for free at the levels they'd normally get them. Expert types? Not aware of any fixes, but I think most agree that the experts are pretty good as written if played right. Not sure though. Also, in my sig, I have a collection of some rebalanced classes. On a side note, though, I prefer multi-classing, simply because it's more fun. It might not even be optimal compared to straight classing, but I'd have more fun. I changed the way favored class works. Instead of imposing an XP penalty when you multiclass too much, I award an XP bonus for each level of your favored class you posess. If you have more than one favored class, the bonus is based on whichever one is higher level. This one change eliminates the adversarial nature of the multiclassing rules and it frees up a lot of choices for the players that would otherwise be unfeasible while at the same time giving a very powerful reason to stay single-classed at high levels. Best of all, gameplay is exactly the same; there's nothing to add or change like their would be with free gestalts or extra feats. They just level up faster than their peers. Just putting it out there. I like this one (since the multi-classing XP rules are a little arbitrary as written), but the human Fighter/Psiwarrior/Barbarian/Ranger always get an XP bonus, while the Elven Ranger/Fighter gets crap. I think that maybe offering an XP bonus for every level of their highest level class might work (rewarding them directly for straight-classing), but as has been said, fixes do not stop munchkins: they will always be able to find power loopholes. If your single-classer doesn't get some optimization help, or you don't tell the optimizers to bring things down a notch, then you will still have problems, no matter the solution.
nonsi 01-28-07, 03:01 AM	If by returning glory you mean make spellcasters even more broken than ever, sure. 1. I claim that my approach (if you take all my modifications into account) actually makes them LESS broken, just more versatile. 2. I'm still waiting for your reply on several issues over there.
SirTodd 01-28-07, 02:55 PM	<quote Kintara> -Well, honestly, I doubt that it's the fact that the player is making a single class character that's the problem. It's what he's doing with this single class character. Really, what you're looking for is a way to make this one player more competitive with the other players, but it doesn't sound like this other player wants to play the character optimization game.</quote> Exactly. He isn't at all interested in optimizing. But his getting killed all the time is ruining his fun. This is why I came up with the 'gestalt single class' option. He gets a power boost without having to plan his character out to 20th level or beyond. He can just sit down and have fun. And his power shouldn't lag behind the other players like it often does... reguardless of his selection of sub-optimal feats. -Many of you suggest limiting the optimizers and some even suggest getting them to help the single class guy's selection. But this is Exactly what I am trying to avoid. I DON'T want to limit people's fun. It is easy for me to simply optimize my monsters to challenge the power gamers. And they truely enjoy this level of danger. The other guy my 'single classer' just doesn't want to think long term. And is just happy taking the next level of his class. He rightfully gets a little aggrivated when people tell him what he 'should' be taking. And I find myself agreeing with him. It is HIS character and he knows the system fairly well. He just makes his choices based on his concept and role rather than any hard mechanics issues. -What is each player playing specifically, by the way? The campaign ended... at 28th level. A long run from level 1. At the end my two optimizers were rogue based and wizard based respectively. They work extremely well as a team and are best friends in real life. The single classer was a straight cleric... all the way. This set of house rules will be for my next campaign unless you people talk me out of it... -Galstaf makes a good point... what if my player wants to switch classes later. I really don't see it happening. But who knows. He might decide to try a second class in there. This is a hard point to counter because I can't predict the future. All I can say is that in previous editions of the game almost all characters where locked into a class forever and they still had fun. So I might have to really leave this in the 'single classers' hands. I won't let someone switch if they choose this power boost. If he wants to keep his options open I may be stuck. Taking away bonus feats because of a switch is just as bad as taking away a whole class. -Thanks Genesh. But not merely bonus feats as you might suggest because I fail to see those alone helping much at high levels only. Is the only other way to handle this by rewriting all the base classes? Thats the only thing that comes to mind and will take a lot of work to make every class attractive and powerfull even at high levels. -Nonsi... I see you already did a lot of rewriting. But I still want to play D&D. Drastic changes to the magic system aren't likely to be welcomed by anyone at my table. -PS: I do love to poke the players weak spots hard Kintara... I do. But you can't do that all the time. Once or twice in a campaign is fun and edge of the seat stuff for the players. But any more and it's just the oppostite and they feel your unfairly targeting them. Which, given the premise, is accurate. -PPS: I already ruled out XP bonuses for reasons I stated earlier.
DarkRhystar 01-28-07, 03:52 PM	A few posters (like Seerow) have hit the issue on the head. To make single class characters viable, you need to redesign base classes to give comparable abilities to what prestige classes give. For example, look at what the Sorcerer gets for levels: Poor HD, poor skills, poor BAB, spellcasting, and familiar progression. The only thing prestige classes don't do better is familiar progression which isn't a big loss. Why would you ever not prestige out?
Tyler Do'Urden 01-28-07, 04:43 PM	...but the human Fighter/Psiwarrior/Barbarian/Ranger always get an XP bonus, while the Elven Ranger/Fighter gets crap. Well, there's always elf subraces.
Kintara 01-28-07, 07:46 PM	Hmm, you went to level 28? Well, that's interesting. You see, single class builds actually fare quite well in the epic environment. And Clerics are quite powerful, and even relatively complicated multiclass builds aren't going to much beat out a straight up Cleric if played with skill. Anyway, are you sure your other player has a problem with the situation as he sees it? I mean I know you perceive an imbalance when you're crafting your encounters, but maybe he doesn't see a problem. In fact, his reaction to the other players stepping in might be indicative of this. I mean Clerics are good characters to have around. They cast good buffs and heals, for instance. Maybe he's happy in his support position. Heck, maybe he's even actively avoided being a combat character because he wants to play a less up-front role in combat. I mean a Cleric can be played perfectly well as someone that removes debuffs, casts buffs, and heals at the right time. Sure, he may not deal much damage, but maybe that's because he's not trying to. Alternatively, maybe he is unhappy, but it's because he doesn't really enjoy his Cleric niche. Also, what stops the optimizers from jumping at the chance at making gestalt "single class" characters? It's really hard to beat a good gestalt build, even if you're limited to just the two base classes you start with. If they're looking for power, then that's going to attract them. And trust me when I say that the "problem" will only increase in that case because there are plenty of different ways to optimize a gestalt character (which classes pair better together? what spells to take? what feats? how to allocate ability scores?). To put this another way, you're not addressing the symptoms. The symptom isn't that single-class builds are sub-par. It's that two of your players are better at and interested in combat optimization, and one isn't (or so you say). You see I can prove it because if that player made a multiclass character, it wouldn't automatically make him competitive with the other players. And the reason for that is that he isn't basing his decisions on the same criteria. So, I guess I have some questions. Do you know precisely what each of your players thinks of the power situation? Is there really a problem, or does it just seem like it from your position (I freely admit I can be wrong here...but it's important to be sure)? Do you really think that your house rule is targeting the problem, or is it just changing the details a little? -- Anyway, you mention that you don't want to trample on people's fun. But if there's one thing I know about character optimization, it's that it's ALL about working within the rules, and not just the printed ones. There are builds out there that any knowledgeable optimizer knows will crush any opposition if you just use the rules as written as the guidelines for making your character. So most optimizers limit themselves already so that the game stays fun. They'll avoid easy exploits because they don't feel fair taking advantage of them. They'll set up more specific boundaries to follow for making their character (maybe there's a certain theme that interests him, or a certain underused mechanic cries out for him to make viable). My point here is that setting boundaries as the DM is not destroying the fun, not in and of itself. It depends on the interests of the players involved. You may very well be surprised what they'll accept, and even embrace. Outside limits can be more fun because they challenge you. Edit: Also, it sounds like your two players that make the multiclass builds are closer to eachother than the single class build player. To me, that implies that there could be more going on at the table than a mechanical imbalance. You can have the most powerful character in the world, but if the other players are approaching the situation in one way, and you're approaching it another, there still can be an imbalance in screen time and, ultimately, in how the goals are accomplished. After all, it's not about whether someone has power, but how the power is actually used (and, well, where the camera is).
Kintara 01-28-07, 08:02 PM	Anyway, if we still want to solve this mechanically, why don't we focus on the real problem here and just set up a player handicapping system? Joe starts off at level 3, and Bill and Jeff start at level 1. They all gain XP as first level characters. I like that more because then we're at least focused on the specific players here, instead of what I think is a side issue about single-classed builds. I mean I think there could be more benefits for sticking with a single class, but I don't think that's the problem here.
ravenshrike 01-28-07, 11:00 PM	Have him play a beguiler. Play with lots of creatures without mind-affecting immunity. Even the multiclassers will be hard pushed to properly keep up. Played with even the least amount of optimization, a beguiler is a nasty foe.
starfire311 01-29-07, 09:52 AM	The campaign ended... at 28th level. A long run from level 1. At the end my two optimizers were rogue based and wizard based respectively. They work extremely well as a team and are best friends in real life. The single classer was a straight cleric... all the way. This set of house rules will be for my next campaign unless you people talk me out of it... The problem is clearly the player and not the rules, level 28 cleric can pack an awful lof of power, it should be able to easily compete with anythign but super munchkin builds, and if the other 2 players werent trying to play This (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6428790&postcount=130) or King of smack (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=227556) or Hulking hurler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=142565) or Mister I always get my way (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=371519) or heaven forbid Pun-Pun (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801) then a straight cleric 28 should at the very least be able to compete if not outshine the rest of the party, if played well.
starfire311 01-29-07, 09:57 AM	Anyway, if we still want to solve this mechanically, why don't we focus on the real problem here and just set up a player handicapping system? Joe starts off at level 3, and Bill and Jeff start at level 1. They all gain XP as first level characters. I like that more because then we're at least focused on the specific players here, instead of what I think is a side issue about single-classed builds. I mean I think there could be more benefits for sticking with a single class, but I don't think that's the problem here. good point, you can always rank the players in optimization ability, for example with the players allow the best optimizer 22 PB and a level 1 the 2nd best optimizer 25 PB and a level 2 the 3rd best optimizer 28 PB and a level 3 award all xp as if they were all the same level, that being the lowest level member... that way you can make sure that you penalize the players that you want to penalize. The gestalt system will not solve the problem, it may just encourag all 3 to go gestalt, and you are back to the same situation, because the better optimizers will still end up much more powerful, unless you exclude the gestalt option form the good optimizers.
SirTodd 01-29-07, 01:07 PM	I am begining to see the light. You are all right of course. After reviewing some of the tricks a Gestalt person can utilize I realize that I would simply end up with three gestalt characters... And I know I would be pushed by my two optimizers to allow full gestalt. So I will pull that house rule off the table. But wouldn't artificially assigning LA (effectively what your suggesting) based only on character optimizing skill be seen as playing favorites? Although I guess I am sort of playing favorite here. But only to allow that one guy a better chance of survival in this high powered game. I don't like this option very much (although it might work). Thank you everyone. It looks like I am going to have to set up a different house rule. One that grants benefits to a character when he takes more than 10 pre-epic levels in a single class. I will post a new topic when I figure that out... At least I have time. Even if I start the new campaign this weekend I will have a long time before they get past 10th level. If you have any suggestions I am all ears.
DarkRhystar 01-29-07, 01:23 PM	good point, you can always rank the players in optimization ability, for example with the players allow the best optimizer 22 PB and a level 1 the 2nd best optimizer 25 PB and a level 2 the 3rd best optimizer 28 PB and a level 3 award all xp as if they were all the same level, that being the lowest level member... that way you can make sure that you penalize the players that you want to penalize. That is far and away one of the absolute worst ideas I have ever seen.
Fargren 01-29-07, 01:24 PM	Why don't you ask your optimizer to help optimizing the guy' character?
Kintara 01-30-07, 03:25 PM	I am begining to see the light. You are all right of course. After reviewing some of the tricks a Gestalt person can utilize I realize that I would simply end up with three gestalt characters... And I know I would be pushed by my two optimizers to allow full gestalt. So I will pull that house rule off the table. But wouldn't artificially assigning LA (effectively what your suggesting) based only on character optimizing skill be seen as playing favorites? Although I guess I am sort of playing favorite here. But only to allow that one guy a better chance of survival in this high powered game. I don't like this option very much (although it might work). Thank you everyone. It looks like I am going to have to set up a different house rule. One that grants benefits to a character when he takes more than 10 pre-epic levels in a single class. I will post a new topic when I figure that out... At least I have time. Even if I start the new campaign this weekend I will have a long time before they get past 10th level. If you have any suggestions I am all ears.My advice to you regarding your specific problem is to do what I suggested earlier, which is work with your players to come to some sort of middle-ground that they all enjoy. There's no real structural way to handle the situation you have. It's a social thing. My suggestion about player handicapping isn't really what I think you should do; it just illustrates my point about how house rules won't solve this problem. As for making single class builds cooler, well, I think the solution there is a careful re-design of each class, and DM oversight of how players use prestige classes and expanded material. But there might be some quick and dirty hacks that work pretty well. I mean all you really need to do is backload some extra bonuses on the classes from level 12 on. Hey, maybe you could build some sort of Hang in There package with extra HP, attack/AC/damage bonuses, ability score bumps, skill points, etc., that accrue regularly.
johnkretzer 01-30-07, 03:36 PM	I know it can be extremely fun to multiclass all over the place. This can create characters with powerfull abilities. The rules make it easy to build stronger characters by such multiclassing. I feel the old 'Single Class' character has been left behind. So I came up with a way to breathe new life into a respected tradition of older editions: the single class character. Basically if a new character wants to play as a single classed character (never able to switch classes ever, not even once they go epic), then I allow them to Gestalt into their race's favored class only. In the case of 'any' favaored class (like humans get) the decision can't be switched arround. For example: A new player wants to create a human wizard. He foresees his character as a devoted worshiper of Mystra, so he takes Cleric as his gestalt. For the entire time the character is played he will be locked in as a gestalt (wizard/cleric). He can never switch classes and never select a PrC. But his character should stand strong next to his ally who has a number of classes including a couple PrCs which grant this ally abilities his single classed friend will never have access to. But in exchange the single classer will have full spellcasting in two classes. What do you all think? Is this too much? I was hoping it would produce a balance in the game between multiclassers and single classers. Although I haven't had the opportunity to playtest it yet. I love the irony...lets fix single classed characters by making them dual class characters so we can respect the older tradition of single class characters. Personaly I have seen alot of multi-class builds that blow chunks when compared to single class characters...and it sometimes doesn't matter a 20th level wizard is still casting 9th level spells.... But it seems that your problem was based on a player who might not make the best use of his abilities. Giving him a power boost might not be a good idea...if he can't use what he already has. You can limit multi-classing by applying a penalty to PrC akin to multi-classing. Or just limit the number of PrCs you are allowed.