One prestige class limit?

[ken-do-nim]

I'd like to know how many - if any - DMs make it a rule to limit pcs to one prestige class each.

[TengYt]

I've never heard of this house rule before. Apart from a very few specific builds, usually adding more than one PrC just ends up limiting a character in the long run.

[Temet Nosce]

I've seen occasional advertisements for games like this, but I can't recall off the top of my head any of my DMs doing it. It's not the kind of game I'd actively seek out though, since I enjoy character building.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never heard of this house rule before.

Neither have I.

[Foryn Gilnith]

"No dipping", yes. But most DMs allow one to move on to another prestige class when you've finished a first.

[Yora]

I guess I could be talked into allowing two prestige classes, if the player has really good reasons. But since I've seen almost no games that got beyond 9th level, that has never become an issue yet.

[SparkMandriller]

Better not restrict PrCs. Tampering with the system might ruin the perfect balance WotC created. Be as bad as bringing in books from outside core, it would.

[Saph]

"No dipping", yes. But most DMs allow one to move on to another prestige class when you've finished a first.

Yeah, this. I think I've very occasionally seen games advertised with a one PrC limit, but much more often I see something like "don't dip classes, try to justify what you're doing in RP terms".

[Eldariel]

The principal issue here is that it mechanically gimps some concepts. For example, arcane gish PrCs are always 10 levels or less and yet, you need 15 levels in dual progression to get to 20.

Same with e.g. Druid/Wizard; Arcane Hierophant is only 10 levels. And by these rules, you'd practically never be able to enter Archmage by a Wizard since you can only enter level 13-14 which means you'd have to go without a PrC all the way up until then.


I don't think restricting PrCs really accomplishes the intent I think people are after with it. Asking for "finished PrCs" does work, but even then, it mechanically gimps many classes that would be usable as dips; 1 level of Spellsword is doable and 3 levels is ok, but 10 levels? You absolutely destroy your spellcasting capability. Same with Mindbender; the first level is good, but all the way is horrible. And that's only the tip of the iceberg; a lot of PrCs that suck all the way are playable specifically because you can dip them (Arcane Archer, Rage Mage, Shadowbane Stalker, Deepwarden, etc.).

And really, as long as we focus on the character, not his classes, I don't think there is much of an issue with multi-PrC builds.

[Riffington]

And by these rules, you'd practically never be able to enter Archmage by a Wizard since you can only enter level 13-14 which means you'd have to go without a PrC all the way up until then.

Presumably, the attitude that "going without a PrC all the way to 13 is implausible" would be precisely what such a limit is trying to accomplish.
Personally I'd rather beef the base classes (like Pathfinder tries) or nerf the strongest PrCs a bit... but surely a premise behind that rule is that "straight Wizard" is a totally valid choice.

[Gorbash]

My DM uses that houserule... Except in cases of Wizard and Cleric who can take Archmage/Hierophant in addition to one prestige class. Yeah, he actually nerfes everyone except wizards and clerics! But his grasp on what's overpowered/underpowered is kinda silly, so he nerfes everything he deems OP (which sometimes isn't) and allows something that's OP, so blah.

I have a houserule in my campaigns that you have to finish a prestige class once you start it (or you can alternate between your base class and prestige class) just to avoid Conjurer 3/Master Specialist 5/Iotsv 3/MotAO 3/Incantatrix 2/Archmage 1 type of builds.

[Reaper_Monkey]

There are plenty of prestige classes intended to be entered at level 6, and are only 10 levels deep. Considering only spell casting prestige classes allow +1 level equivalence for base classes, that means as soon as you hit level 16 you have to pick up either level 1 of as base class or level 6 of your previous base class.

Perhaps limiting it to two prestige classes might work, but limiting it to one is devastating to the intended purpose of the prestige class. If you want to stop dipping, just say you have to take at least 3 levels in any prestige class (as this will prevent most cheese builds and is an acceptable investment overall).

[Curmudgeon]

Since the multiclassing XP penalties apply only to base classes, also restricting PrCs can lead to some severe constraints. Especially when you consider that a lot of PrCs are only 5 levels long.

This seems like a bad idea.

[PId6]

I have a houserule in my campaigns that you have to finish a prestige class once you start it (or you can alternate between your base class and prestige class) just to avoid Conjurer 3/Master Specialist 5/Iotsv 3/MotAO 3/Incantatrix 2/Archmage 1 type of builds.

Why in the world would you ever only take 3 levels of IotSV? Or 2 levels of Incantatrix when all 10 is infinitely better? Most of the best PrCs you want to take all the way through, while a lot of PrCs are completely unusable if you take every level of it.

Basically, what Eldariel said.

[woodenbandman]

I go on a case by case basis. I won't limit prestige classes across the board, but I might not let you play Incantatrix3/IotSFV7/Shadowcraft Mage5

[tyckspoon]

I go on a case by case basis. I won't limit prestige classes across the board, but I might not let you play Incantatrix3/IotSFV7/Shadowcraft Mage5

Poor build anyway, as Wizards go. Incantatrix and Shadowcraft Mage both want to be taken all the way to 10, one for the capstone universal metamagic reduction and the other because the effectiveness of your shadow magic scales directly and significantly with the class levels. You're more likely to see those capped with Archmage 4 or something like Fatespinner 3/Mindbender 1.

[Korivan]

I've seen quite a few people on these threads post that you can't (or by thier house rules) get more prestige class levels then you have base class levels. I.E. no Wizard 5/Incantrix 10/Archmage 5, but rather Wizard 10/PrC's 10.

But beyond that I havn't heard of anyone limited to just 1 PrC. I know I wouldn't use it as a DM, but I also don't limit the number of PrC levels vs Base class levels.

I could see me using something like this if my players were munchkins or trying to break the game with PrC's. But, my players arn't like that. Mine are ones who play hack n slash...often poorly. Untill I started building thier characters with them (except for one guy, he knows what he's doing), I was seeing gestalt ranger/rouges with no focus on builds (feats bounced around from melee AND ranged. And no spell casting cause that was thier dump stat). Monks with focus on charisma. Multiclassed Fighter/Wizards spending 2-4 rounds buffing themselves up before participationg in the fight. Or clerics that only cure X wounds, but nothing else.

[Talya]

d20 is entirely built around multiclassing. That's why so many people love it...the freedom to make a character with 20 different classes over 20 levels (while probably not a good idea from an optimization standpoint) allows for a near limitless variety of builds and concepts. Any house rule which restricts this freedom is a bad thing, imo. (This includes silly "no dipping" rules.)

[Diamondeye]

What Talya said. Rules about numbers of base classes allowed or numbers of PrCs allowed are really pretty arbitrary. Not all PrCs are created equal.

It may be a good idea to restrict some PrCs that are specific organizations or pertain to specific things or entities in your game world, but you can usually do this just fine with the entry requirements. For example in FR a Red Wizard is required to A) not be good and B) be a human from Thay which is more than enough restriction for RP.

There's an unfortunate number of PrCs out there, however, that have excessive baggage in terms of fluff tacked onto them. The daggerspell mage/shaper, for example. Why exactly did these mages and druids get together to train to cast spells with daggers? That's the sort of fluff that can pretty easily be dispensed with. Another good example is Ruby Knight Vindicator. I would just dispense with "Ruby" and remove any reference to Wee Jas so that if you wan to use this PrC with some other diety you can.

As long as the player can describe how the mechanics of the classes he selects support his roleplaying concept in a logical fashion, I don't see any reason to put limits on PrCs, base classes, or even to make someone finish ne PrC before taking the next.

[ken-do-nim]

d20 is entirely built around multiclassing. That's why so many people love it...the freedom to make a character with 20 different classes over 20 levels (while probably not a good idea from an optimization standpoint) allows for a near limitless variety of builds and concepts. Any house rule which restricts this freedom is a bad thing, imo. (This includes silly "no dipping" rules.)

I think the urge comes from the desire to mix both kinds of players at the table, those who enjoy character building and those who just want to play and will usually stay in their base class all the way.

The "no more levels in prestige than you have in base" idea is quite interesting, btw. But ultimately, imposing any artificial limits is always going to turn some players off.

[mostlyharmful]

But PrCs and dipping them is for combat builds, casters main power is casting which doesn't change whether you add a few cool beanies or not whereas it kills a whole lot of build options for other characters. Seriously, if a caster can just take one PrC then ok, Incantatrix here we come, or Iot7 or whatever... even just straight big five works fine. sucks to be anything other than a full caster though.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

Better not restrict PrCs. Tampering with the system might ruin the perfect balance WotC created. Be as bad as bringing in books from outside core, it would.

That is not entirely true. It depends on the game world the DM has created. There are a ton of non-WoTC books that are utterly fantastic and very well balanced.

On the idea of limiting prestige classes, I have instituted a rule of "You must finish a prestige class before you take another". That has been groused about, but has eventually made for better characters. also, most of the players that I have experience with don't like to mix and match and combine etc. takes too much extra work, and ends up being shaky at best.

[Reaper_Monkey]

The "no more levels in prestige than you have in base" idea is quite interesting, btw.

Again, this wouldn't work though, there are many prestige which allow the Base 5/Prestige 10/Second prestige 5 build (in that order mostly too) which this rule would not allow to exist. If you want balance, they easiest way is to just say that some builds can be dismissed due to their overpowered nature, and handle it on a case by case method.

[ShadowsGrnEyes]

i also go with a case by case. justify to me how and why your character actually aquired this variety of training/knowledge/abilities without stretching the limits of my imagination and maybe if it doesnt look like your trying to OP i'll allow it. some PrC's are only good for dips, some you really should take the whole way. some are realy good for dips but based on the design of the class wouldnt make sense to dip in for role play purposes.

[Kaldrin]

I'd like to know how many - if any - DMs make it a rule to limit pcs to one prestige class each.

The second to last game I played in the rule was that you had couldn't get another PrC until you finished the levels on the one you already started.

That group had quite a few peculiar house rules though. One was they didn't start epic levels until 40. Another was PrC compression... if that's what you can call it. The ten level PrCs were generally compressed into 5 and 5 were down to 3 for the most part.

[Kaldrin]

On the idea of limiting prestige classes, I have instituted a rule of "You must finish a prestige class before you take another". That has been groused about, but has eventually made for better characters. also, most of the players that I have experience with don't like to mix and match and combine etc. takes too much extra work, and ends up being shaky at best.

I've always preferred to stick with a single class and see it through. The only two times I've done it was when it made sense for the character... Ranger/DWS and dragonborn Sorcerer/Dragonheart mage. Other than that nothing really ever made sense. I've always had the weaker combat character in the party because of it.

[Mushroom Ninja]

I've had several DMs who have imposed this rule, and it irks me to no end. Not only is it a ridiculous restriction on build flexibility, it also makes no sense whatsoever from a roleplaying point of view.

[ken-do-nim]

Okay so the "must finish one before starting another" philosophy is clearly superior to the "one and only one".

i also go with a case by case. justify to me how and why your character actually aquired this variety of training/knowledge/abilities without stretching the limits of my imagination and maybe if it doesnt look like your trying to OP i'll allow it. some PrC's are only good for dips, some you really should take the whole way. some are realy good for dips but based on the design of the class wouldnt make sense to dip in for role play purposes.

I just think the case-by-case basis approach would lead to a lot of arguments, but I guess it could work with the right group of players.

[Boci]

i also go with a case by case. justify to me how and why your character actually aquired this variety of training/knowledge/abilities without stretching the limits of my imagination and maybe if it doesnt look like your trying to OP i'll allow it. some PrC's are only good for dips, some you really should take the whole way. some are realy good for dips but based on the design of the class wouldnt make sense to dip in for role play purposes.

Would you accept "This is the best way I can think off to mechanically represent the character I described in my background story?"

[Foryn Gilnith]

Not only is it a ridiculous restriction on build flexibility, it also makes no sense whatsoever from a roleplaying point of view.

True. It might make sense for some characters, but by no means is it universal. Several of my characters have been too erratic to ever see a tradition through. If my wizard wants Geometric Spellbook, and has to slog through two whole levels to get it, he's gonna be damn tired of Geometer. He'll leave as soon as he gets it. Go into mindbender for a level, then leave because have to learn so many social skills at the expense of magic (his life's vocation) is annoying, and he already got the cool telepathy he came for.