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?

[Kajhera]

Well, the concept of prestige classes in themselves rather encourages multiclassing, hm?

I like multiclassing being useful. It opens up a lot of options and helps builds be the more distinct from each other without writing up a million different base classes. If you had, say, 15 base classes with no multiclassing allowed, there'd be 15 options. Allow someone to take two classes instead, and if they're all viable options, you get 120 options. Add in the possibility of three classes, and tack another 455 options onto there.

It's nice to feel unique. A little reward for remain single-classed might be nice as well; but reward it too much and we're down to our limited seeming 15 options once more... Caster levels reward it a little too much, I think.

[Sunic_Flames]

Enough so that you see them. Not so much that you only see them. Druids only pure class, barring Planar Shepherd. That's too much. Non casters that aren't martial adepts always multiclass like crazy. That's not enough. Martial adepts are actually just right. Taking one 1-20 is a valid life choice, but they can also be multiclassed in different combos to different lengths. Consider why this is so, and apply it elsewhere.

[Ramaloke]

Something that I've always found amusing was how useless strait classed wizards and in particular sorcerers are in pre epic, but in Epic they get lots of bonus feats. This is the only time I've seen it be "worthwhile", but it takes a while for it to pan out, say level 30-40.

[Agita]

Enough so that you see them. Not so much that you only see them. Druids only pure class, barring Planar Shepherd. That's too much. Non casters that aren't martial adepts always multiclass like crazy. That's not enough. Martial adepts are actually just right. Taking one 1-20 is a valid life choice, but they can also be multiclassed in different combos to different lengths. Consider why this is so, and apply it elsewhere.

This. There is nothing inherently wrong with multiclassing or not multiclassing. Either option should be roughly equivalent in validity to the other, then you can call your work done and let the player figure out what he wants.

[Kajhera]

Yeah, martial adepts did it pretty well. I'm satisfied whether it's a quick fling or a steady thing.

[Surreal]

One of the inherent problems in 3.5 in terms of balance/character creation/blahblahblah is that the power curve and options available changed over time, but the basic frame (being the bass classes and some of the mechanics, in loose terms) did not. Some elements adapted or benefited from the change, others did not or got left behind in the dust.

*shrug*

[JaronK]

I consider it the mark of a well made class that players strongly think about whether or not to stay in it, and both staying in and leaving it have advantages.  For example, staying in Factotum gives you strong abilities at many levels (1, 3, 8, 11, and 19 are all amazing, while 16 has a pretty decent one too).  The ToB classes are solid in this way as well.  So's the Archivist (Dark Knowledge is pretty darn amazing).

Poorly made classes are either ones where leaving is pretty much a must (Sorcerer) or extremely problematic (Spellthief, at least until the advent of the Master Spellthief feat, and even that's problematic.  Artificer too.).  You shouldn't be trapped in the class, nor should you expect nothing further from it.

Unfortunately, it's clear that the designers would just get bored with a class, or make it too powerful early on, and simply stop adding interesting abilities and other things that might keep you in the class after a few levels.  Paladins, for example, get virtually nothing new after the first few levels.  Monks get a whole bunch between levels 1 and 6... and then it just drops off until by level 12 you're getting absolutely nothing you'd ever care about (and few people would bother going even that high).  Barbarians get awesome stuff early and then drop off too.  Dread Necromancers get an amazing set of abilities up to level 8... and then every ability past that until their last level isn't worth talking about (at least their Fear aura gets better).

JaronK

[X-Codes]

Factotum is also a reasonably good class in this regard, although it could use a nice ability somewhere in the last 3-4 levels or so.  More inspiration points are always good, and it's the only method to improve the factotum's unique spellcasting ability (short of Legacy Champion, obviously).

Dread Necromancer is almost good.  Lich is a pretty good template if you're getting it for free, but there's just so many mediocre and dead levels between 8 and 20 that going the full 20 levels is usually only done when starting at/near there.

[raith0]

i thought about this when i was working on my overhaul of the Players Handbook Classes.  I put Rewards based on class level in every class but also didnt make them end all be all of the class.  i also moved some things over to be based on skill checks and that can help pending the ability. 

I truly think that a single classed character should be at least closed to the same power as a multi-classed/prced out character.  the problem is even with some caster builds its not the case. 


Ron

[LordBlades]

IMHO, the problem here is twofold.

First of all, many classes lack the incentive to keep advancing in it. Take wizards and clerics for example (2 strong tier 1s). All you gain by not PrCing out is 1 feat every 5 lvls and a stronger familiar (oh noes) or increase in some domain granted powers. Way too little compared to Druid or Archivist.

The second part of the problem si the design of some PrCs. The way I see it, any PrC should be a trade off: give away some of your char's abilities (feats, caster levels etc.) in exchange for an improvement of roughly equal value in another field. Very, very few PrCs have acheived that. Most of them take away immensely valuable resources (mainly caster levels) and only give some minor tricks instead. However, there also are some 'no-brainer' PrCs out there, that either have no requrements (like Master Specialist, you don't need anything that most specialist wizards wouldn't have anyway) or provide benefits that far outweigh the entry requrements (like Incatatrix that costs you 1 spell school and 1 feat that you soon get back since the class offers a lot of bonus feats and gives you a very large number of powerful tricks).

[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 class / prestige class options for his next level.  No more, no less.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

+1 JaronK

this is why good homebrew keeps each ability on par with what others might have at that level.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

None whatsoever.  Ideally multiclassing should be equal with single classing in overall power.

[Flay Crimsonwind]

Enough so that you see them. Not so much that you only see them. Druids only pure class, barring Planar Shepherd. That's too much. Non casters that aren't martial adepts always multiclass like crazy. That's not enough. Martial adepts are actually just right. Taking one 1-20 is a valid life choice, but they can also be multiclassed in different combos to different lengths. Consider why this is so, and apply it elsewhere.

It could be how the last line is tacked on, but you sound so incredibly like Miyamoto Musashi right there. Bravo, good sir.

[JaronK]

Factotum is also a reasonably good class in this regard, although it could use a nice ability somewhere in the last 3-4 levels or so.

The level 19 ability is the strongest one they have!

Anyway, I agree with others that more classes should have class level based abilities (but not so that they are all the class has).  This is why every fix I've done for a class or homebrew new class always has stuff like that... stuff like Fighters getting to add 1/3 their class level to Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Overrun, and Bull Rush attempts.  It's not enough to lack dead levels... the stuff you get must be useful, and you should get it a lot, especially for non casters.  Remember, casters get a whole new spell level every 2 levels... how does Wholeness of Body or 1/week Cure Disease stack up to that?

Also, I agree that PrCs should lose something.  One house rule I use is that all casting PrCs lose a level of casting at level 1.  If they would have been full casting, they're now 9/10 (or 4/5) otherwise the next level that would have had no casting now has casting advancement instead of their first level.  It makes it an actual choice to multiclass, and means the best Wizards are, in fact, Wizards (though many PrCs are still awesome).

JaronK

[RobbyPants]

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?

Personally, I don't think it matters.  If the resulting character is fun to play and fulfills the character concept without breaking the game, then it's fine.  I don't care if there's one class or five written on the character sheet.  Those classes are tools to build the concept.

Now, speaking of 3.x specifically, yeah it sadly does matter because of their borked multiclassing system.  There are way too many good options and trap options resulting in characters that break the game and characters that can't even do what they're supposed to.

[jameswilliamogle]

I hate these threads.  Does this even belong here?

[Sunic_Flames]

Enough so that you see them. Not so much that you only see them. Druids only pure class, barring Planar Shepherd. That's too much. Non casters that aren't martial adepts always multiclass like crazy. That's not enough. Martial adepts are actually just right. Taking one 1-20 is a valid life choice, but they can also be multiclassed in different combos to different lengths. Consider why this is so, and apply it elsewhere.

It could be how the last line is tacked on, but you sound so incredibly like Miyamoto Musashi right there. Bravo, good sir.

Also, be sure to kill multiclassing penalties in a fire. They don't do what they are supposed to do anyways, and they can get in the way (raise your hand if you made a build a human just to not get screwed over by multiclass penalties).

[RobbyPants]

I hate these threads.  Does this even belong here?

D&D Deliberations would probably be a better place.  I'm assuming he picked Min/Max either out of laziness or hoping for higher traffic.  There is substantially more posting here.