PC Power Levels!

[Mirakk]

I guess I wanted to gain some perspective from others on the relative power of my campaigns. I've always had a rule that you can have up to 2 base classes, and 1 PrC on a character. I also allow you to take Racial Paragon levels without penalty.

But I see lots of people using builds with like 8 different classes all taking 1-3 level dips to maximize their character. I guess I just wanted to see how prevalent this practice is.

This goes along the same lines, but I try to minimize itemization a bit as well. Players don't typically get +1 weapons until around level 4, and at level 9 they're just beginning to get +1 weapons with Flaming/Defending etc properties. However, I've had open bar on alchemical items, scrolls, wands, potions etc for characters who want to spend their gold there. The party members each have around 20,000gp of items on them, but ones that have been faithful to their character and received NPC rewards of vast power have higher itemization for their bravery etc.


Am I holding my players back? What's the relative rules for multiclassing you use, and how crazy do you go on the magic items?

[Flickerdart]

Melee/mundane characters requite egregious multiclassing. Spellcasters do not.
Melee/mundane characters require many magic items. Spellcasters do not.
Spellcasters occupy the two highest tiers, and a healthy portion of the third. Melee/mundane characters are exclusively 3 and below.

In short, your rules do nothing to the balance of power. A straight Druid, Cleric or Wizard will, allowing equal optimization, always be better than any mundane build using as many different classes as they please, so long as they do not have spells.

[Axinian]

To me it sounds like your PCs power levels are
OVER NINE THOOOUSAAAAND!!!!!

Seriously though, while what you do is a fairly common practice, its at least equally as common to allow many more classes. Either way is fine really, but I think limiting classes by quantity leaves out some really fun, creative, and interesting builds. I generally find banning problem classes rather than simply limiting the number of classes one can take works better, but that's just my experience.

I do like limiting items though. Makes them feel more special when you do get them.

[Devmaar]

If your players aren't complaining, you're probably fine. If they want to try a higher powered game that's fine too, as long as you still enjoy running it.

Basically if everyone is having fun, you don't need to change, but that's no reason not to try a different way of doing things if you want.

[Chronos]

Multiclassing isn't about power. Or rather, it isn't just about power. The warrior who travels the world learning bits and pieces of many different fighting styles is a well-established trope in fantasy fiction, and that's basically what a bunch of level dips is. Yes, it's usually increasing the power of the character, but it's in a way that makes sense in-character: A fighter who routinely faces down horrible monsters really should want to do whatever it takes (at least, to within the limits of his personality or code of behavior) to be the best he can be at fighting.

On items, my preferred approach is that item shops are rare (only found in major cities), and even then stock only in low-end items (potions, low-level scrolls, low-plus weapons and armor). More valuable items, if they deal in them at all, are on a consignment-only basis. But the DM should still provide the players with full WBL levels of loot, of types approximately corresponding with what they need.

This is for a few reasons: First, the existence of high-end magic item shops strains my sense of verisimilitude: The owner of such a shop must be extremely powerful, to be able to protect his stock from thieves, and presumably to make them, so why isn't he the one out saving the world?

Second, giving the players free rein to buy whatever they want makes it too easy for them to break the game. Limiting their treasure to what you give them helps keep that under control.

Third, it makes treasure more special. If you can convert gold into whatever you want, then finding a really cool magic item is no more special than finding the equivalent value of gold-- Less special, in fact, since the gold is customizable. And it also lets you reward the players with truly epic amounts of gold: In earlier editions, the hoard of a decent-sized dragon was more than a 3rd-edition player could expect to find in an entire career, but it wasn't unbalancing: You could afford anything money could buy, but there were an awful lot of things money couldn't buy.

Finally, it gives the DM an opportunity to smooth out imbalances in the party. If one player is totally outshadowing another (whether due to a stronger class, or greater level of optimization, or whatever), you can have the party find fewer items useful to the overpowered character, and more that are useful to the underpowered one.

[Mirakk]

Thanks guys. Chronos, it seems you and I are on the same page about the item availability. The concepts you listed are how I do it (gotta use brokers and it'll take a week or more to find "special" stuff), so I think I'm good on the items front.

As for the classing suggestions, you all raise some very good points. I guess it's not so bad to let people multi-class around a little more if they wanted to, as long as it's explainable within the story what they're doing and why.

I guess that leads me to my next question. When PCs do roll 4 or more classes, do most groups just throw the xp penalty away?

[Morph Bark]

I guess that leads me to my next question. When PCs do roll 4 or more classes, do most groups just throw the xp penalty away?

My group has never used XP penalties, ever. It seems rather needless; even moreso when we want everyone to be of the same level.

Also, why do you limit your players to 1 PrC? Do you do this even if the PrC is only 3 levels long? If no to the second question, where is your limit?

[Keld Denar]

XP penalties are dumb. Eldariel had a pretty good explaination a while back, but the jist of it went something like:

Elves are often described as very naturey. If an elf character had levels like, Ranger4/Druid7, he would get a multiclass penality. This is dumb.

On the other side, if you had an elf who's class breakdown was: Fighter1/Cleric2/Wizard1/Rogue2/Monk1/Ranger2/Bard2, he wouldn't have a multiclass penalty despite being utterly rediculous.

Contrast with something like the classic Sorcadin build. Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellsword1/AbjChamp5/SacredExorcist8.

2 base classes, 3 PrCs, including a 1 level dip in Spellsword. Really though, its just an arcane knight (possibly with draconic heritage ala Bahamut, the Platnum Dragon). Paladin gives him the martial training while Sorcerer powers the main chassis of the build. Spellsword is dipped because its easy to qualify for, and helps you reach the prereqs of AbjChamp a level earlier with less loss of BAB or spellcaster levels. Sacred Exorcist is icing on the cake, a decent class chassis with 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, d8 HD, and a host of class features. It all synergizes well, despite being rather multiclass heavy.

Lastly, as has been touched on above, spellcasters have class features. They are called spells. Most of your actions are dictated by what spells you chose. All you care about is getting more spells, for the most part, so multiclassing is generally a poor idea. Characters who aren't spellcasters, however, are pretty much described as the sum of their BAB, HP, and skill points. You get BAB, HP, and skill points from every class, to some degree or another. While you can't stack your wizard spellcasting with a dip in cleric, you CAN stack your BAB, HP, and skill points from your fighter levels with a dip in barbarian. That basically opens up everything that isn't a caster for multiclassing, depending on what features you want your character to have. If you want more skill points, you take a class that grants a lot like Rogue or Bard. If you want to get into a PrC that requires Rage, you need at least one Barb level, possibly more. If you have some tricksy feat combo you want to actualize before level 6, consider 1-2 levels of Fighter to pick up a few bonus feats.

Basically, think of classes like legos. Each level is a single lego. If you are a caster, the only legos that let you build higher are legos of the same color (IE you can only stack red bricks on top of more red bricks). Your stack of red bricks is only as high as the number of red bricks you have, and other color bricks, while stacked to the side, don't increase the height of your stack of red bricks. For non-casters, since your main features all stack, you can stack them as high as you want without regards to colors. If you have green bricks, yellow bricks, white bricks, black bricks, and blue bricks, you can stack them all up, and your stack of bricks is as tall as the sum of your bricks.

[Kol Korran]

my approach is this:
- as to leveling: i allow PCs to take whatever level they qualify for, as long as it makes sense in game. however, my players are not heavy optimizers, and were usually settled with 2-3 classes altogether, so i haven't really tested this fully.

- Items and wealth: i allow my PC to trade of their items, however, there are three limitations: first, every settlement has a cap of gold for items (similar to the DMG rules, but not quite) secondly- most cities only have common magic items to sell, so your "oh so special" custom item usually requires time anf money to craft (and time is never abundant in my campaigns) third- i sometime give items that are... "special" (from old cultures, mini relics and so on) that cannot be easily replicated.

so far this has fostered a "some items are ok, but tradable, some are special, which we should keep" kind of attitude.

the game assumes a certain level of wealth (the Wealth by Level system). it's more important for non casters. i try to keep to it (or a similar value)

- XP penalties: never used them. they are too limiting and silly. they don't contribute to fun, and therefor they are gone.

[Big Fau]

I guess that leads me to my next question. When PCs do roll 4 or more classes, do most groups just throw the xp penalty away?

That rule really should not exist. Realism be damned, the classes most penalized by it are the noncasters (seeing as the rule does not apply to PrCs).


The worst part about that rule is that it is cumulative, meaning the developers actually thought that people would multiclass to the point that they would level up 50% slower than everyone else. The CharOps guys had to go out of their way to make a character that couldn't level up, and the character was largely unplayable even without that rule.

[Tyndmyr]

I guess I wanted to gain some perspective from others on the relative power of my campaigns. I've always had a rule that you can have up to 2 base classes, and 1 PrC on a character. I also allow you to take Racial Paragon levels without penalty.

Why?

Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 is roughly as much power as you need. And will utterly crush the Fighter 2/Barb 1/Ranger 1/Marshall 1/Wild Prc dipping.

I play/DM at very high tiers. My current party is a who's who of broken builds. It includes one person abusing leadership and another abusing diplomancy. Neither of these people did much in the way of dipping, and would be entirely legit by your rules, but would likely break most games in half*.

*The diplomancer, for instance, has a feat to talk to the recently dead. When you can talk to literally almost anything AFTER killing it, you can get away with a lot. Quite a lot.


This goes along the same lines, but I try to minimize itemization a bit as well. Players don't typically get +1 weapons until around level 4, and at level 9 they're just beginning to get +1 weapons with Flaming/Defending etc properties. However, I've had open bar on alchemical items, scrolls, wands, potions etc for characters who want to spend their gold there. The party members each have around 20,000gp of items on them, but ones that have been faithful to their character and received NPC rewards of vast power have higher itemization for their bravery etc.


Am I holding my players back? What's the relative rules for multiclassing you use, and how crazy do you go on the magic items?

No, you're holding the responsible players back. You're giving the powergamers free license to go willy nilly, and you're discouraging playing against type. I strongly advise abandoning these house rules. All of them.


This is for a few reasons: First, the existence of high-end magic item shops strains my sense of verisimilitude: The owner of such a shop must be extremely powerful, to be able to protect his stock from thieves, and presumably to make them, so why isn't he the one out saving the world?

By this logic, one might ask why gun store owners do not replace special forces. All you need is a social structure such that the owner is not the only line of defense against theft.

[Basket Burner]

I guess I wanted to gain some perspective from others on the relative power of my campaigns. I've always had a rule that you can have up to 2 base classes, and 1 PrC on a character. I also allow you to take Racial Paragon levels without penalty.

But I see lots of people using builds with like 8 different classes all taking 1-3 level dips to maximize their character. I guess I just wanted to see how prevalent this practice is.


Melee/mundane characters requite egregious multiclassing. Spellcasters do not.

Got it in one. Though he's wrong about the rest. Your rules do something for the balance of power. They throw it off more. Without all that multiclassing, melee characters are even worse.

As for items, I generally give more than standard WBL for two reasons.

1: Casters will get more than standard anyways.
2: Non casters need more than standard.

To get said wealth, they have to kill whatever has it, so it's not just being given to them.

[Provengreil]

Finally, it gives the DM an opportunity to smooth out imbalances in the party. If one player is totally outshadowing another (whether due to a stronger class, or greater level of optimization, or whatever), you can have the party find fewer items useful to the overpowered character, and more that are useful to the underpowered one.

careful with that, lots of people will get really mad at you if you do that. take red hand of doom: quite a lot of people hate the treasure in vraath keep, an not just because the weapon is a bastard sword you won't have proficiency with. it's a +2 sword while most of the rest of the party got nothing.

[Optimator]

All I had to say on the subject was already said in the first two posts.

Melee/mundane characters requite egregious multiclassing. Spellcasters do not.
Melee/mundane characters require many magic items. Spellcasters do not.
Spellcasters occupy the two highest tiers, and a healthy portion of the third. Melee/mundane characters are exclusively 3 and below.

In short, your rules do nothing to the balance of power. A straight Druid, Cleric or Wizard will, allowing equal optimization, always be better than any mundane build using as many different classes as they please, so long as they do not have spells.



Seriously though, while what you do is a fairly common practice, its at least equally as common to allow many more classes. Either way is fine really, but I think limiting classes by quantity leaves out some really fun, creative, and interesting builds. I generally find banning problem classes rather than simply limiting the number of classes one can take works better, but that's just my experience.

[Malachei]

I guess I wanted to gain some perspective from others on the relative power of my campaigns. I've always had a rule that you can have up to 2 base classes, and 1 PrC on a character. I also allow you to take Racial Paragon levels without penalty.

But I see lots of people using builds with like 8 different classes all taking 1-3 level dips to maximize their character. I guess I just wanted to see how prevalent this practice is.

Although I've dropped multiclassing XP penalties, most of my players stick to 2-3 classes. Only on rare occasions there is excessive dipping, and in these cases, it is often stopped by the setting / background requirements. One of the most dipping-friendly classes are in Tome of Battle, By making them monastery-trained, the book provides a limitation right from the beginning. I've assigned several classes and Prestige Classes to different colleges, cities, etc. -- and, if I feel that the PC's background story is starting to become unrealistic by excessive dipping, reserve the right to veto parts of it.



This goes along the same lines, but I try to minimize itemization a bit as well. Players don't typically get +1 weapons until around level 4, and at level 9 they're just beginning to get +1 weapons with Flaming/Defending etc properties. However, I've had open bar on alchemical items, scrolls, wands, potions etc for characters who want to spend their gold there. The party members each have around 20,000gp of items on them, but ones that have been faithful to their character and received NPC rewards of vast power have higher itemization for their bravery etc.

Often, I introduce items that are somewhat stronger, with additional powers that are detected / understood / mastered when PCs have gained a few levels. Thus, the fighter can keep the very special sword found early or even inherited. Although I don't use them, the Weapon of Legacy rules could be a start here. This is one of the reasons that my groups often have a lot more than the standard WBL charts. I've never seen a real balance issue arise from it. Many items don't affect balance that much (+3 vs. +1 sword, Wands which usually represent backup, etc.). You have to have a look at the items, of course. Attacks, saves and even damage is not that easy to increase to unbalancing levels, but of course, this also depends on the way you design monsters and enemy NPCs -- they should still be effective against your party. This applies especially to AC bonuses, and you should take care to assure the party's AC ranges are still in line.

[LordBlades]

In my group we usually look at the end result rather than the means to achieve it:

-Does it make sense for your character to have the abilities he has? If so, then it's ok even if you dipped 125 different classes to get them
-Does your character's power level conform to the general power level of the game? We don't allow chars that are either too strong or too weak compared to what the game is aimed at.

[Tyndmyr]

careful with that, lots of people will get really mad at you if you do that. take red hand of doom: quite a lot of people hate the treasure in vraath keep, an not just because the weapon is a bastard sword you won't have proficiency with. it's a +2 sword while most of the rest of the party got nothing.

*Spoiler alert for those who haven't played*

That's not technically correct. There's also gauntlets of strength for someone, and the rod of healing. Sure, that doesn't guarantee that everyone in the party gets something equally awesome at exactly the same time...but it's a pretty reasonable spread of items.

[Basket Burner]

careful with that, lots of people will get really mad at you if you do that. take red hand of doom: quite a lot of people hate the treasure in vraath keep, an not just because the weapon is a bastard sword you won't have proficiency with. it's a +2 sword while most of the rest of the party got nothing.

The problem with that is:

1: People assume all classes are equal. They aren't.
2: People don't use bastard swords, so it's just gold in a lighter weight format.

The more expensive an item is, the more likely it is someone will need it and not have better already.