[3.P] How much incentive should there be for single classed characters?

[Endarire]

Druids, aside from fringe builds like Planar Shepherds, have excellent reason to remain Druids all the way. They get full casting, Wild Shape, and a buncha misc. abilities. Having d8s, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, and 4+INT skill points with Spot and Listen as class skills just adds to it.

Most classes aren't like this. A typical non-caster will probably take a level or 2 of many classes over 20 levels, and maybe some PrCs. Often, this is an effort to remain viable.

A typical caster could single class while remaining powerful, but would lose out on spiffy class features from PrCs.

One goal of 3.x was its free multiclassing system, but most classes have little incentive to remain single classed. Do you consider this emphasis on multiclassing in a system that subtly emphasizes it a good thing, bad thing, or something else?

[Urpriest]

If there is no reason to go to 20th level in a class then the game has content without a purpose. As such, every class should be worth going to 20 in. However, that doesn't mean it should be unambiguously better than multiclassing. It merely needs to be of similar power. Neutralize the incentives to make all content useful.

[Callista]

Most classes don't have extremely useful features after level 10 or so; and many PrCs duplicate most or all features of the base classes. I don't think it's a problem that most characters will go into PrCs--in fact, going into PrCs is a way to customize your character that goes beyond just picking feats, skills, and spells. The base classes are not "useless content" beyond whatever level it's smart to go to a prestige class--they still serve as the basis of what an average, non-specialized character in that class should be capable of; and they serve as generalist versions of those classes. Specialists are usually more powerful in any group where their weaknesses can be covered for by other characters; so naturally most people will go for the specialized stuff instead of the general class. Why does there need to be any incentive at all?

[Frosty]

Umm, since this is Pathfinder if you stick in your original class you get an extra HP or skill point each level...

[Urpriest]

Umm, since this is Pathfinder if you stick in your original class you get an extra HP or skill point each level...

My understanding is that Endarire's 3.P threads use 3.P as 3.x+PF, not as PF itself.

[Callista]

That was my assumption, too. Am I wrong?

[ArcanistSupreme]

If there is no reason to go to 20th level in a class then the game has content without a purpose. As such, every class should be worth going to 20 in. However, that doesn't mean it should be unambiguously better than multiclassing. It merely needs to be of similar power. Neutralize the incentives to make all content useful.

This 1000 times. If the only reason that someone would ever take a class to 20 is for simplified bookkeeping (otherwise known as laziness), then there is something wrong with the basic design of that class, or with PrCs that came later (as in every 10/10 casting class post-archmage).

[Quietus]

I think the goal shouldn't be offering *incentive*, but there should be some level of *choice*. That is, it shouldn't be a matter of "every member of this class multiclasses/prcs out every single time", it should have enough interesting things happening to make people have to choose between option X and option Y. Rogue, with its late-coming special abilities, is a good example of this, I think. Sorcerer and Druid would be the low and high points that work as examples of the *bad* way to do it; A Sorcerer loses nothing by prcing out, and a druid rarely WANTS to prc out because its abilities are too good.

I think a base class, as mentioned earlier in this thread, should be a good all-around general example of its archetype, that can be tweaked in different directions. Prcs should then have to give up that general "all around" ability to specialize in one thing over another. A fighter that gives up bonus feats to get into weapon master, for example - if we assumed that fighter was well designed and had enough feats worth taking, and that weapon master was a good example of a melee class. Giving up the general abilities those feats offer to pursue a specialized role is what I think prcs should be designed around.

[gbprime]

When I run 3.5, I hand players bonus feats or misc abilities o the 11th and following levels of any class they're in. Classes like Monk and Druid get very small bonuses, while classes that have little or nothing in the way of abilities have much more. I often give them a superior spell, or change a feat they have (like Dodge) into one that scales up based on character level, etc.

It serves as a tool to balance characters and hand out plot-related or plot-enabling candy.

Examples...

Armored Might of the Ages (Transmutation) Wizard 7
Prerequisite: 15 levels of Wizard
Target creature gains an enhancement bonus to strength and damage reduction (silver) equal to the caster level of the spell. Duration 1 minute/level.

Shuck And [FEAT]
Prerequisite: Dodge feat, Evasion, character level 12
The character gains a Dodge bonus equal to 1/3 Character level, rounded down. This replaces the bonus provided by the Dodge feat.

[Frosty]

When I run 3.5, I hand players bonus feats or misc abilities o the 11th and following levels of any class they're in. Classes like Monk and Druid get very small bonuses, while classes that have little or nothing in the way of abilities have much more. I often give them a superior spell, or change a feat they have (like Dodge) into one that scales up based on character level, etc.

It serves as a tool to balance characters and hand out plot-related or plot-enabling candy.
Upon reaching 11th level, Monks deserve a free gestalt with another tier 5 class. Druids need to get...nothing extra.

[ArcanistSupreme]

Upon reaching 11th level, Monks deserve a free gestalt with another tier 5 class. Druids need to get...nothing extra.

Monks should get that at level 7 or so. As the class is now, level six is the absolute last level that should ever be taken of Monk, and that's pushing it.

Druid should, if anything, lose some of it's abilities. It's Tier 1 out of the box and has zero incentive to PrC out ever. A class that is more powerful than all alternatives is kind of boring.

[Endarire]

Pathfinder's Favored Class system, normally +1 HP or skill point per level of favored class, is a minor incentive. It's a slight boon, but it does not compete with class abilities.

I know there are variants which improve upon the Favored Class choices in certain cases, but they are exceptions.

Advanced Player's Guide 23's human Sorcerer gives +1 spell known, but not of the highest castable level. Dreamscarred Press's psionics system (http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=762.html) allows naturally psionic races to get +1 power point instead of +1SkP or +1 HP per level. These are worth more, but not entirely compelling reasons to stay in one class.

[Thrawn183]

The simplest fix is quite easy.

Casters don't get anything other than spells. Prestige classes give a variety of interesting things but not full spellcasting. The better the PrC benefits, the less caster levels. Just handle it the way psionics was handled for the most part.

[Rixx]

Pathfinder added a lot more level-scaling bonuses into the base classes. You'll rarely want to "PrC out" of them.

[Endarire]

As a Pathfinder Wizard, I see little reason to stay a Wizard if I have the 3.5 library available. I got a slight upgrade with Acid Dart and an extension of my summonlings, but then I take that and go Incantatrix or somesuch.

[Godless_Paladin]

[3.P] How much incentive should there be for single classed characters?

There should be just enough incentive to create a situation where an intelligent player can feel the indecision when weighing options for his next level. No more, no less.

[Endarire]

A note about casting: "Thou shalt not lose caster levels" unless it's for a very good reason.

A very small number of class features are worth losing a caster level over, and those that are would likely be more powerful than the spells they replaced!

We've already had the debate on what's worth a caster level (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9856.0). No need to repeat it.

As for non-caster incentive, I found building a Hood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872838/Little_Red_Raiding_Hood_A_Tale_of_38_Guide_to_the_ 35_Dragoon) has so many viable options. Do I go Cleric1 this level? Barbarian1? PsyWar1?

[Godskook]

Casters don't get anything other than spells. Prestige classes give a variety of interesting things but not full spellcasting. The better the PrC benefits, the less caster levels. Just handle it the way psionics was handled for the most part.

You literally can't 'handle' vancian multiclassing the same way that you handle psionic multiclassing. A psion 16/fighter 4 with practiced manifester casts his powers as if he had 10th level spell slots. And that's assuming he doesn't have any +CL items around. For Ardent 16/fighter 4 with PManifester, he's actually receiving 9th level powers, assuming he took his 20th level as an Ardent. With vancian casters, this kind of forgiveness doesn't exist. *AT ALL*.

[John Campbell]

Character classes are a mechanical abstraction, and, from a character-concept perspective, a poor one. There should be no mechanical incentive to cram a character into one straitjacket rather than allowing it to expand into a combination that fits better.

And the D&D 3.x mechanics imply that all class levels are created equal... it takes the same XP to level in any class. Having class levels that are more equal than others - Wizard or Druid vs. Fighter or Monk - or character classes that there's no point in taking beyond the first instant you qualify for any prestige class whatsoever that advances your primary class feature - e.g. Sorcerer - is just crappy game design.

[Tetsubo 57]

Since 1978 I have never needed a reason to go single class. In fact, I have never encountered a compelling reason to multi-class. While I appreciate a lot of the PrCs out there, I have never wanted to really play one. I think I played a Fighter/Thief once. But he only had a single level of his second class before the campaign ended.

[dsmiles]

Since 1978 I have never needed a reason to go single class. In fact, I have never encountered a compelling reason to multi-class. While I appreciate a lot of the PrCs out there, I have never wanted to really play one. I think I played a Fighter/Thief once. But he only had a single level of his second class before the campaign ended.

High-five!

I rarely play anything more than a single class, unless I want to use a specific PrC. But it's not to 'remain relevant' or whatever. I play with a low-op group, so single classed characters work. Yes, even fighters and monks.

[Comet]

High-five!

I rarely play anything more than a single class, unless I want to use a specific PrC. But it's not to 'remain relevant' or whatever. I play with a low-op group, so single classed characters work. Yes, even fighters and monks.

Same.
And even if I do multiclass, it's normally something along the lines of Figher/Wizard or Rogue/Wizard or Rogue/Fighter or something like that. Y'know, like in AD&D as I remember it.
Fighter/Wizard sounds cool, to me, unlike Ranger/Scout/Wizard/Rogue/Monk/Prestige1/Prestige2. Too many classes and the concept of the class itself starts to lose some of its charm, resulting in a mess you just try not to think about too much.

[Person_Man]

If all of your players take 20 levels of a single class (assuming that they each pick a different class) does it add anything to your game?

I would say no.

It doesn't make them better at role playing.

It doesn't necessarily make the players more powerful (or weaker).

It doesn't necessarily make the game more streamlined or complex.

It doesn't enforce better niche protection.

All that it does is make character conceptualization and creation simpler. That's it. Now for many people that's a very compelling reason, and it's one that I respect. But everything else is a function of the player's abilities and experience as individual gamers and as a group.

Now, a class with dead levels and no capstone is a poorly written class - that's undeniable. Every class should have some reason to take every level of it's progression. But it's equally undeniable that multi and prestige classing adds OPTIONS, and that preventing or nerfing the players options (or giving benefits to players who choose not to exercise them for some reason) just leads to unintended consequences.

[truemane]

Some of this though depends on how you define the word 'Class.' As has been said numerous times, a Class is just an abstraction that contains a certain amount of actual mechanical content and a certain amount of implied narrative content. But that narrative content is just that, implied.

If you take three levels in each of Fighter and Rogue the default implication is that your character has 'learned' the basics of those two different vocations (like taking a single year of college for plumbing and culinary arts), but that's just the default assumption. Sneak Attack can be advanced training for a military man as easliy as it can be basic training for a wily street urchin.

A string of classes effecively creates a single custom class.

As such, I don't think there needs to be specific incentive to single-class as opposed to multi-class. Muchkins are gonna munchkin no matter what the specifics of the system are.

[Comet]

Some of this though depends on how you define the word 'Class.' As has been said numerous times, a Class is just an abstraction that contains a certain amount of actual mechanical content and a certain amount of implied narrative content. But that narrative content is just that, implied.

If you take three levels in each of Fighter and Rogue the default implication is that your character has 'learned' the basics of those two different vocations (like taking a single year of college for plumbing and culinary arts), but that's just the default assumption. Sneak Attack can be advanced training for a military man as easliy as it can be basic training for a wily street urchin.

A string of classes effecively creates a single custom class.

As such, I don't think there needs to be specific incentive to single-class as opposed to multi-class. Muchkins are gonna munchkin no matter what the specifics of the system are.

This is actually a very interesting point and one I'd like to hang on to for a bit more.
To me, a game that is "class based" immediately evokes images of those classes being important, distinct parts of the characters with both narrative and mechanical effects. With that in mind, downplaying the role of the classes to be little more than convenient skillsets or packages feels like going against the stream.

If one wants to customize a character to a greater degree, picking whatever skills they want and combining those to create something new, shouldn't one pick a system that is skill based, as opposed to class based?
It might be just me, but I'd rather have characters that are clearly defined in their role if I am playing a class based game to begin with.

[dsmiles]

If all of your players take 20 levels of a single class (assuming that they each pick a different class) does it add anything to your game?

I would say no.
I would have to agree with you here. Although, IMO, it doesn't take anything away, either.

It doesn't make them better at role playing.

It doesn't necessarily make the players more powerful (or weaker).

It doesn't necessarily make the game more streamlined or complex.

It doesn't enforce better niche protection.

All that it does is make character conceptualization and creation simpler. That's it. Now for many people that's a very compelling reason, and it's one that I respect. But everything else is a function of the player's abilities and experience as individual gamers and as a group.
That is a very compelling reason, at least for me. As a casual gamer, I like to keep it simple.

Now, a class with dead levels and no capstone is a poorly written class - that's undeniable. Every class should have some reason to take every level of it's progression. But it's equally undeniable that multi and prestige classing adds OPTIONS, and that preventing or nerfing the players options (or giving benefits to players who choose not to exercise them for some reason) just leads to unintended consequences.
I have to disagree a little, here. I don't feel like every level needs to give me something. As long as I can keep up with the challenges, I'm content. Yay for options, but I don't feel like I always need to utilize those options. I'm currently playing a single classed IK Gun Mage. (Med BAB, Good Reflex, Casts like a Bard with a different spell selection, and has a few nifty abilities). Yeah, I could go into pistoleer and buff my combat, or I could go into an arcane PrC, and buff my casting. But I probably won't.

[ErrantX]

A string of classes effecively creates a single custom class.

As such, I don't think there needs to be specific incentive to single-class as opposed to multi-class. Muchkins are gonna munchkin no matter what the specifics of the system are.

This. +1

Very well put. I couldn't agree more.

-X

[Tyndmyr]

Umm, since this is Pathfinder if you stick in your original class you get an extra HP or skill point each level...

I dislike this solution. Id rather the classes be chosen because they were a viable optiondue to their abilities than because of an external constraint.

Also, it leads to hp inflation.

[grarrrg]

I think the goal shouldn't be offering *incentive*, but there should be some level of *choice*....Rogue, with its late-coming special abilities, is a good example of this, I think....

And Rogue is also a great counter example of this, see "Rogue 20".
Rogue is good enough at what it does to be worth level 19. But I can assure* you that no one EVER takes Rogue 20.

*assurances may not be available in your area. Consult your doctor before using assurances. Assurances have been know to cause weight-gain, weight-loss, Alien chest-bursters, constapation, vomiting, that thing that happened to that guy in that movie I saw once, and dizziness.

[gbprime]

I've played 2 single classed characters in recent years. One was a Binder, which has enough candy by itself. The other was a Fighter, using both the Thug and Simple variants.

I'd like to play another straight fighter, just to make a point. But I know that after level 10, I'll be spending all his feats on Tome of Battle stuff. He can pull decent maneuvers at that level.