Need Help in a 3.5 Discussion about Multi-Classing

[McClintock]

Help needed:

I am trying to prove a point without hurting feelings.

Houserule: PCs can only take 3 classes (2 base, 1 prestige)

Player 1's argument: 1 base class with 2 prestige classes is WAY more powerful than 2 base classes and 1 prestige class.

Player 2's argument: Anything can be made powerful give the correct build.

I am player 2 and would like builds that help reinforce my position. Core builds would be spectacular, but any will do. No Eberron, No Dragon Magazine, No 3-rd Party. Everything else should be available to us. Try to avoid setting specific as we play Greyhawk and would need to convert.

Thanks I really appreciate any help I can get.

[Xervous]

Cleric 20
Wizard 20
Druid 20

The three most powerful core builds than will top almost any variation of splatbook enabled mundanes.

Regardless, you can't really argue in generics of 1 base + 2 PrC vs. 2 base + 1 PrC. Both have infinitely ludicrous combinations.

cleric, druid, and wizard can only get better with the allowance of 2 prestige classes. But they already broke the game in theoretical so there isn't much of a point. The same can be said if a base class is swapped for that second prestige class. Some dips are notoriously powerful.



_____

In other words: limits on multiclassing hurt mundane classes more than spellcasters and only serve to create a greater imbalance. While spellcasters lose out on some nice tricks when denied extensive multiclassing options, they still have the main thing that makes them ludicrously powerful: magic. Mundanes on the other hand are limited to the class features they can manage to wring out of every nonmagical level.

With mundanes that multiclass extensively, there are a few combinations that yield great power, but in those circumstances it is usually one class or feat that is at fault rather than the character's ability to take lots of different class dips. So learn what classes can cause problems and deal with them specifically rather than putting out a blanket ban on lots of multiclassing.

Also, more multiclassing means more customization options. If you really, really want to bring a concept to life it helps to have a wider range of options to pick from to craft the perfect statblock to complement the backstory and fluff you filled notebooks with.

[Urpriest]

A more relevant point is that this is explicitly against designer intent. Look at Master Specialist, which is explicitly designed to enter Archmage, or at any of the Knight of the X classes in Dragonlance. Multiple PrCs is part of the designer intent, while multiple base classes, except for theurge-types, isn't.

[Psyren]

2 base -> 1 PrC to me says theurge, and most of those are weak. One alternative is strong base 1/irrelevant base 2/PrC advancing base 1, but just about all of those would be better off with strong base 1 -> PrC 1 -> PrC 2.

Of course, it's just as possible to pick base -> weak PrC -> weak PrC. In which case that one will be weaker. So it's too nebulous to be definitive but I see more vertical power potential from base -> PrC -> PrC.

[killem2]

You could keep it very simple, and go:

Fighter 6 (dungeon crasher) -> psychic warrior for the rest, and don't even bother with prestige classes.

or

I also think going, focused specialist conjurer, into malconvoker, is going to stupidly powerful. Or just straight conjurer.

A bit more hilarious thing you could do is, Druid, into beast master prc, and just focus on animal companion usage. Use one level, and pick up the strongest base class that gives you a familiar, and exchange it for an animal companion as well :smallbiggrin:. (though this may not help your case)

There is also, perhaps straight ranger, with thrikreen, and daisy chain the kurki weapon aptitude garbage.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Multiple PrCs is part of the designer intent, while multiple base classes, except for theurge-types, isn't.

Though, as things went on, multiple base class build support found its way into the system - for example, things like Daring Outlaw, Swift Hunter, Master Spellthief, and their ilk.

Regardless, Xervous is correct in saying that limiting dips does disproportionate harm to mundanes. The Horizon Tripper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80415) (which, as far as I'm aware, is something of a gold standard for core only mundane builds) would be illegal under the proposed house rule, while Wizard 10/Red Wizard 10, Wizard 15/Archmage 5 are fine. There's no question that either of the Wizard builds (not to mention Druid 20 and Cleric 20) are much more powerful than the Horizon tripper; therefore the house rule isn't having the intended effect, and should probably be reconsidered.

[Segev]

Really, pick something you want to demonstrate optimization in, and I'm sure we can come up with something that "breaks the game" by the standards of your fellow player using either of the strictures he's arguing.

[eggynack]

A bit more hilarious thing you could do is, Druid, into beast master prc, and just focus on animal companion usage. Use one level, and pick up the strongest base class that gives you a familiar, and exchange it for an animal companion as well :smallbiggrin:. (though this may not help your case)

I can't really see beastmaster being anywhere close to as good as not-beastmaster. Really, the only prestige class that makes druids better is planar shepherd, moonspeaker gets you somewhere near equal to a druid 20, and lion of talisid is acceptable. I don't think druids are going to be relevant for either side of this discussion, because one base two PrC's and two base one PrC are both usually worse than one base with nothing extra. If you absolutely have to choose one, the PrC option is generally better. Arcane hierophants are decent for the other side though.

[Spuddles]

Those limitations absolutely limit caster power. Shadowcraft Gnome is considerably less impressive without shadow adept, for instance. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil goes up to 12 when you put 3 levels of incantatrix in there. Arcane Hierophant is spectacular with Mystic Theurge.

The real solution isn't some stupid blanket heuristic, but spot banning. Let wizards take multiple prestige classes, so long as they're master specialist, blood mage, or loremaster.

[eggynack]

Those limitations absolutely limit caster power. Shadowcraft Gnome is considerably less impressive without shadow adept, for instance. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil goes up to 12 when you put 3 levels of incantatrix in there. Arcane Hierophant is spectacular with Mystic Theurge.

These limitations marginally limit caster power. A wizard going into incantarix is going to be perfectly fine, and arcane hierophant into mystic theurge is generally worse than just avoiding theurging altogether. Also, as I noted, unless you allow planar shepherd into your campaign, rules limiting the number of base and prestige classes in your game have zero effect on druid power level. When you get right down to it, a caster with a bunch of accessories and knickknacks is going to be the same tier as a caster without them, while a lower tier class might get a boost of a tier or two. Limitations on the number of classes you can have is thus a reduction in the balance of the game, because any limitation that the casters experience is a pittance when compared to the limitations that a mundane fellow will experience.

[Telonius]

Player 1's argument: 1 base class with 2 prestige classes is WAY more powerful than 2 base classes and 1 prestige class.


Depends on which base class we're talking about.

Consider a basic Cleric/Monk/Sacred Fist build. The Sacred Fist will blow any Monk/Tattooed Monk/(I dunno, let's say Kensai) out of the water. But it's not as strong as Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor/(some other Cleric PrC).

[Segev]

Heck, Cleric->War Hulk is probably rather terrifying in this game. And I'm fairly sure it's not actually as good as straight cleric for most purposes.

[Fax Celestis]

If your worry is caster PrCs being lolborkzorz, you're approaching this from the wrong direction.

Two steps:

"All classes that have 5/5 casting progression now have 4/5 casting progression, losing a CL at their first level."

"All classes that have 10/10 casting progression now have 8/10 casting progression, losing a CL at their 1st and 5th levels."

[eggynack]

If your worry is caster PrCs being lolborkzorz, you're approaching this from the wrong direction.

Two steps:

"All classes that have 5/5 casting progression now have 4/5 casting progression, losing a CL at their first level."

"All classes that have 10/10 casting progression now have 8/10 casting progression, losing a CL at their 1st and 5th levels."
This is a good idea, but it has some gaps. The two major ones are classes which already have a dead caster level at some point after the first level, and are thus a class that you take until that dead caster level, and classes that already take a hit at first level, and are still amazing. Some examples of the former are the fatespinner and mindbender, and some examples of the latter are the war weaver and the malconvoker.

[Fax Celestis]

This is a good idea, but it has some gaps. The two major ones are classes which already have a dead caster level at some point after the first level, and are thus a class that you take until that dead caster level, and classes that already take a hit at first level, and are still amazing. Some examples of the former are the fatespinner and mindbender, and some examples of the latter are the war weaver and the malconvoker.

Absolutely. This isn't going to work for 100% of the problems, but it will work for a lot of them.

What it does is introduce choice. "Can I afford to delay summon monster III a level so I can go into this PrC?"

"Problematic" classes--incantatrix, for instance--probably need more than that. But at least you already have a blanket rule that covers 90% of cases.

[killem2]

I can't really see beastmaster being anywhere close to as good as not-beastmaster. Really, the only prestige class that makes druids better is planar shepherd, moonspeaker gets you somewhere near equal to a druid 20, and lion of talisid is acceptable. I don't think druids are going to be relevant for either side of this discussion, because one base two PrC's and two base one PrC are both usually worse than one base with nothing extra. If you absolutely have to choose one, the PrC option is generally better. Arcane hierophants are decent for the other side though.

While true, if you can afford it though, a fleet of dire tigers or fleshrakers each packing magic items, is going to get stupid. :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

While true, if you can afford it though, a fleet of dire tigers or fleshrakers each packing magic items, is going to get stupid. :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, but, y'know, less stupid than just more druid. More druid is generally always better than less druid. Also, the animal companions after the first are based on beastmaster levels rather than character level, and are penalized from there. You get a fleet of fleshrakers, but they're underpowered compared to your level, and the animal companion is a bit underpowered later on anyway. Your beastmaster capstone is a riding dog that is lacks any kind of advancement, which is crazy weak. If I'm going absurd with pushing a druid class feature beyond its ordinary limit, I'm going master of many forms.

[Randomguy]

1 base class with 2 prestige classes gives a slight advantage to spellcasters, who only need one base class but can benefit from multiple prestige classes, while melee/martial characters are generally more powerfull with more multiclassing.

Really, though, as others have mentioned, any sort of limit on multiclassing gives makes mundane characters fall further behind.