|
@Pendagast:
Lol, fair enough. I had about a solid 10 years or so with 2nd and 2.5/Players Option material before 3rd was released. Everything got to be 2nd nature for me with that system.
I will say though, i am resistant to multi-classing due to the core classes being so well thought out. If it's a build/concept that makes sense to me, then maybe i would look at dipping, but not very likely. In 3/3.5, i considered multi-classing only once i was as far as i could go in the core class.
And yet it's actually a pretty strong and plausible build to go full-class Sorceror all the way to 20 now.It was strong and plausible in 3E, too. You got no class features, but you were still casting *wizard spells*. Just because you could do even better by going into prestige classes didn't make Sorc 20 suck. Sorc 20 was still INFINITELY better than anything you could ever do mixing and matching paladin / rogue / monk / barbarian / ranger / fighter in any possible combination.
Comparisons between classes is not the topic, the topic is assuming you already are using a given class,
whether going single-class in it or multi-classing around is the prevalent advice.In 3.5, Sorceror may well have been more powerful than mundane classes,
but few people would ever say 'just go full class Sorceror, don't PrC out' on a char-op basis.
There is no lack of people now recommending full class builds, which is the OP's issue.
PrCs are that much less enticing to Pathfinder Sorcerors, who have class abilities and favored class bonuses.
Even full casting PrCs are often just less powerful, or simply equal, to vanilla Sorceror builds.
besides upgrading core classes, Pathfinder also seems to not have many PrCs, and they are usually not broadly powerful,
rather they pull off their schtick reasonably well while giving up something in other realms.
in 3.5 there was often not something signifigant that you would be giving up, so multiclassing and PrC was usually THE recommendation.
well dipping and multi class are technically different things.
For example: Battle herald, I havent found a sound reason or build that would lead me to having more levels of bard than just one.... requires a dip.
Rage Prophet you have to have multiple levels of something. but it doesn't HAVE to be more than two levels of barb, or more than one level of oracle, but you can't become a rage prophet at level 3... sooo it requires more than that... it's not a side track or dip it's a build...
I think the dips bug me the most.
Archer dipping a Level or 2 of Sorcerer.
For those advocating archers (or other classes) dipping into sorcerer to gain some low level wizard/sorcerer spells, you can do basically the same thing by investing in Use Magic Device. My druid, hardly a high-skill class, uses wands for gravity bow and other archery buffs. First level wands are cheap too.
I have dipped into other classes on occasion. My most common blending of classes is sorcerer and rogue.
Level dipping is made much more effective with feats like "boon companion" or feats which allow you to boost caster level, depending on what you are building.
It used to be common in 3.5 for people to level dip to gain very specific synergies that boosted their character to insane capabilities. Pathfinder has done a good job stopping that.
But still, for all that there may be a huge population of gamers out there who level dip for pure role playing or character development reasons, it remains the simple fact that in all my days playing 3.5 the only players dipping levels were the power gamers. That's just how it was.
As I said above, so far in PF nobody in our group has level dipped at all.
But still, for all that there may be a huge population of gamers out there who level dip for pure role playing or character development reasons, it remains the simple fact that in all my days playing 3.5 the only players dipping levels were the power gamers..
I had a warblade that dipped Monk mostly for RPing reasons, altho it certainly didn't nerf the character much.
Some characters can dip easier than they can invest in Feats and Items.
Especially in a Low WBL game.
It used to be common in 3.5 for people to level dip to gain very specific synergies that boosted their character to insane capabilities. Pathfinder has done a good job stopping that.
I think we're seeing an uptick in dipping due to archetypes. When PF first came out, I think the statement was a lot more true. But with archetypes allowing a lot of customization, we're at a point where dipping into archetypes is done for the same reason as dipping into PrCs. Of course, it's at a lesser scale now, in part due to not releasing a bajillion books a year.
I agree with Cheapy. I would also say that most classes[archetypes] still do offer stuff all the way thru to 20, along with favored class bonuses, so it's better than 3.5. But the sheer variety of abilities available in even 1-3 level dips can definitely make multi-class/dipping very viable now. But those aren't 'automatic' dips anymore, single-class builds usually have stuff going for them that gives you a reason to not dip (or to 'restrain' dipping), and it's often a matter of feat/gear investments to achieve similar effects as the dip. In 3.5, having 4-5 classes was not that far out by the end of things.
|
The thing is that some classes are just so frontloaded that you can get just about everything that's cool about them in one or two levels. Monk for example, gives you everything you need to do everything a monk does by level 2, plus two bonus feats. You'll have sneak attack in one level of Rogue, rage in one level of Barbarian, Two levels of fighter is just as awesome of a dip in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5. And one level of Gunslinger gives you a free firearm and everything you need to make good use of it short of more DEX.
Paizo has made single-classing more attractive, yes, but the frontloading on some classes is still there. Fighter 3 is a lot more attractive these days, but that doesn't make Fighter 1 and 2 any less appealing to a non-Fighter who wants to improve his battlefield presence.
And yet it's actually a pretty strong and plausible build to go full-class Sorceror all the way to 20 now.It was strong and plausible in 3E, too. You got no class features, but you were still casting *wizard spells*. Just because you could do even better by going into prestige classes didn't make Sorc 20 suck. Sorc 20 was still INFINITELY better than anything you could ever do mixing and matching paladin / rogue / monk / barbarian / ranger / fighter in any possible combination.Comparisons between classes is not the topic, the topic is assuming you already are using a given class,
whether going single-class in it or multi-classing around is the prevalent advice.
In 3.5, Sorceror may well have been more powerful than mundane classes,
but few people would ever say 'just go full class Sorceror, don't PrC out' on a char-op basis.There is no lack of people now recommending full class builds, which is the OP's issue.
PrCs are that much less enticing to Pathfinder Sorcerors, who have class abilities and favored class bonuses.
Even full casting PrCs are often just less powerful, or simply equal, to vanilla Sorceror builds.besides upgrading core classes, Pathfinder also seems to not have many PrCs, and they are usually not broadly powerful,
rather they pull off their schtick reasonably well while giving up something in other realms.
in 3.5 there was often not something signifigant that you would be giving up, so multiclassing and PrC was usually THE recommendation.
It is on topic, because you claimed Sorc 20 was not strong nor plausible, when it was. I played a Sorc straight classed from levels 1-15, and I can assure you sorc alone was just fine. Having an even better option doesn't instantly make the other choice suck.
The existence of the Archmage PrC in 3E didn't make Wizard suck.
The existence of the Ninja class doesn't make the Rogue suck in PF (it sucks on its own merits!).
I really don't want to get into how PF didn't "fix" multiclassing, dipping, and prestige classes because they just gave the casters all the sweet goodies in-class and left the noncasters who relied on that fluidity little to nothing in turn. If they had merely never printed a single prestige class that gave full spellcasting advancement (or required multiclassing in order to enter, which is functionally the same thing), it would have been great.
well dipping and multi class are technically different things.
For example: Battle herald, I havent found a sound reason or build that would lead me to having more levels of bard than just one.... requires a dip.
It's entirely valid to take bard to 8 for battle herald. There's only 1 more BAB drop than a dip and you get dirge of doom. Also, you get enough third level castings to Good Hope important battles. You're dipping Cavalier instead, but that's because multiclassing is weak.
Multiclassing's weakness is what leads to dips. If you need some ability from another class to get into a PrC or make your concept work you have to dip because a near equal multiclass will almost invariably suck.
the PrC doesnt do anything or carry bard any further unlike other PrCs. It's cavalier-0-centric once you get into the PrC its battle herald/cavvy.... no bonus to bard stuff, it's just a weasly entry level requirement. With the exception of inspire courage and inspire greatness, there is no carry over the the original bard dip. No stacking no continued advancement, so unlike other PrCs that blend a multiclass character into something else and take select abilities and continue to carry them through leveling.... battle herald doesn't.
|
|
I have 11 Pathfinder Society characters, and 10 of them are single class. Ironically, I chose to dip a level on the one that's going for a prestige class once I get him to level 6, so he'll end up with three classes overall (one level of Bard (Dawnflower Dervish), Rogue as favored class, and Halfling Opportunist prestige class).
the PrC doesnt do anything or carry bard any further unlike other PrCs. It's cavalier-0-centric once you get into the PrC its battle herald/cavvy.... no bonus to bard stuff, it's just a weasly entry level requirement. With the exception of inspire courage and inspire greatness, there is no carry over the the original bard dip. No stacking no continued advancement, so unlike other PrCs that blend a multiclass character into something else and take select abilities and continue to carry them through leveling.... battle herald doesn't.
See, for me inspire courage is 50% or more of what I want from the bard. Oh and perhaps the option of using arcane strike.
That's why I would never play a full bard. Nearly everything that comes after level 2 feels very meh. And even if it's interesting/good/strong I can't use it with inspire courage so it feels meh.
My dwarf wizard began play with no main deity listed. The groups cleric saved my life several times and i began studying the teachings of her goddess. Now the cleric deals harshly with people that insult her god and thats the angle i went for.
I took 1 level in inquistor, even though my stats are terrible for divine classes. Was it a better idea than going straight wizard, absolutely not. Did it make sense from a roleplay perspective, yes.
I dont have anything against dipping for mechanical reasons, but i probably wouldnt ever do it. To me it has to make sense in character why i would choose that 2nd class.
For those advocating archers (or other classes) dipping into sorcerer to gain some low level wizard/sorcerer spells, you can do basically the same thing by investing in Use Magic Device. My druid, hardly a high-skill class, uses wands for gravity bow and other archery buffs. First level wands are cheap too.
I have dipped into other classes on occasion. My most common blending of classes is sorcerer and rogue.
Level dipping is made much more effective with feats like "boon companion" or feats which allow you to boost caster level, depending on what you are building.
It used to be common in 3.5 for people to level dip to gain very specific synergies that boosted their character to insane capabilities. Pathfinder has done a good job stopping that.
But still, for all that there may be a huge population of gamers out there who level dip for pure role playing or character development reasons, it remains the simple fact that in all my days playing 3.5 the only players dipping levels were the power gamers. That's just how it was.
As I said above, so far in PF nobody in our group has level dipped at all.
I'd say this depends on how early you want to do it as you really don't want to fail a check in combat.
|
My dwarf wizard began play with no main deity listed. The groups cleric saved my life several times and i began studying the teachings of her goddess. Now the cleric deals harshly with people that insult her god and thats the angle i went for.
I took 1 level in inquistor, even though my stats are terrible for divine classes. Was it a better idea than going straight wizard, absolutely not. Did it make sense from a roleplay perspective, yes.
I dont have anything against dipping for mechanical reasons, but i probably wouldnt ever do it. To me it has to make sense in character why i would choose that 2nd class.
+1
My archer took 1 level in Cleric for RP reasons too.
Was it really better for my character stats wise? No. Was it fun to RP as a warrior priest of a faith. Yes.
You will not see many Full Casters multiclassing.
It depends. A one level dip in crossblooded sorcerer to pick up two bloodline arcana can be quite a good investment for many full casters (for instance, a druid/sorcerer (crossblooded/wildblooded with the serpentine and verdant/groveborn bloodlines) can affect animals, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, and plants with mind-affecting or language dependent spells "as if they were humanoids"). The same with taking one level of spellslinger wizard with a blaster sorcerer (or one level of sorcerer (wildblooded arcane/sage bloodline) with a spellslinger wizard to gain back some cantrips). Some of the more popular sorcerer/dragon disciple characters take levels in barbarian or paladin. A cleric/oracle archer can benefit as mentioned above.
If all you care about are getting the highest level spells as quickly as possible, then multiclassing a full caster isn't for you. However, there are some possible synergies for a dip in another class.
For those advocating archers (or other classes) dipping into sorcerer to gain some low level wizard/sorcerer spells, you can do basically the same thing by investing in Use Magic Device. My druid, hardly a high-skill class, uses wands for gravity bow and other archery buffs. First level wands are cheap too..
Action economy (unless you have prehensile hair/tail, extra limbs, and/or a glove of storing) and consistently being able to hit the DC 20 Use Magic Device check make that impractical in many instances. A wand is not considered a weapon for the Quick Draw feat, so it requires a move action to retrieve and a move action to put away every single time you want to use it; juggling between different wands and a bow is not an easy thing. Until you can get your Use Magic Device check modifier up to about +12 (65% chance of making DC 20, or about 2/3 of the time) or better, you are going to be wasting a lot of actions "doing nothing" on check failures.
|
|
For those advocating archers (or other classes) dipping into sorcerer to gain some low level wizard/sorcerer spells, you can do basically the same thing by investing in Use Magic Device. My druid, hardly a high-skill class, uses wands for gravity bow and other archery buffs. First level wands are cheap too..Action economy (unless you have prehensile hair/tail, extra limbs, and/or a glove of storing) and consistently being able to hit the DC 20 Use Magic Device check make that impractical in many instances. A wand is not considered a weapon for the Quick Draw feat, so it requires a move action to retrieve and a move action to put away every single time you want to use it; juggling between different wands and a bow is not an easy thing. Until you can get your Use Magic Device check modifier up to about +12 (65% chance of making DC 20, or about 2/3 of the time) or better, you are going to be wasting a lot of actions "doing nothing" on check failures.
A spring loaded wrist sheath lets you draw a wand as a swift action. Put it on a weapon chord, and you can drop it as a free action when you need your hands for something else. Most GMs probably won't let you get away with more than one on each arm that way, so you'll have to pick your wands carefully, but that gives you quick access to two wands in the heat of battle.
Stuff
I was talking about dipping for power, not multi-classing for concept.
As I said, it's the DM's job to identify the difference between powergamers and multi-classing. I see them as two very different things. I would not disallow a player from multi-classing but I would strongly discourage any power-gaming as it unbalances the campaign and can ruin other players enjoyment, YMMV.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
My dips are always to mechanically fit the concept I had in mind. I mostly use rogue/martial combinations when that happens. I'm a simulationist, and I refuse to let the class name determine the flavour. Levels are an abstraction, that have no direct bearing in the game, only indirectly through the abilities gained. When I take my first multiclass level, my character doesn't suddenly change, it is just to reflect better what he already is.
When I am a fighter/rogue of some combination, I am NOT a 'fighter/rogue', I am a warrior who uses some dirty fighting techniques and have some skills in my utility belt. I was that before I took the rogue level. If I take wizard/rogue, I am NOT a 'wizard' who had a sudden interest in 'rogue', I am a nifty spellcaster who dabbles in some skillmonkeying. I was that before I took the rogue level. For me, the classes do not exist in the game world, only the abilities that actually interact with the world.
Sometimes the terms for classes and the names ingame to describe stuff overlap, sometimes they conflict. For instance, we happen to have an elven fighter in a party, with archery specialization and decent survival skills. That fighter is constantly referred to as 'the ranger' because that's what his actual role is for us in-character. Similarly, a Sorcerer may be referred to as a 'mage' just as much as a Wizard could be.
What JrK said.
Seconded.
Dipping was sometimes needed in 3.0/3.5, due to inherent weaknesses of the CORE. PF has most of that covered (magus, archetypes, etc.) so it is done less and needed less (IMHO). Full bore casters of any type are almost always hurt by multiclassing. I just sat in a game where a Sorcerer and an Oracle both dipped into Rogue and Fighter before really starting their toons. I'm a level lower than either and contributed far more character-wise to the evening. My gimp was not having played in the game since the GM switched to PF. They suffered by wasting (my opinion) 2 and 3 levels cherry picking and not focusing on a tight character. Personally, if my Wizard has to wear heavy armor, I have already done something wrong.
I have never played a multiclass character and I do not recommend it for my players (new at GM'ing) however, it seems on these boards no one recommends making a character without dipping. So do people dip because they are power gamers and without dipping they can't possibly be uber without it?
The other thing I thought about was the capstone ability. To get the capstone u can't dip but I guess most games don't go to level 20+ so no reason stay in one class?
I am actually going to dip a level into fighter for my inquisitor because i want to be able to wear heavy armor and use all martial weapons. I see the flavor of the class as being almost a switch hitter. All i need is power attack.
This guy is going to be decked out with a big 2-hander, a mace and shield ring, a long bow and maybe some brass knuckles.Do i want to dip into fighter? No, but this character's concept just doesn't fit Gorum (I think that's his name... the god of battles/war) as a god.
Cestus>Brass Knuckles.
Remember Heavy Armour can limit some inquisitor Abilities.
EDIT: I also have an Inquisitor of Gorum. I use a Greatsword, Heavy Mace and Quick Draw Steel Shield, & longbow with Twin Cestus as his back-up weapons.
You don't need to dip at all. just pick up Heavy Armour Proficiency... Or doesn't an Inquisition give you Heavy Armour Proficiency & Tower Shield while allowing you to use Inquisitor Abilities while using them? Or see about making an Inquisition that grants it with your GM.
Cestus>Brass Knuckles.
Remember Heavy Armour can limit some inquisitor Abilities.
EDIT: I also have an Inquisitor of Gorum. I use a Greatsword, Heavy Mace and Quick Draw Steel Shield, & longbow with Twin Cestus as his back-up weapons.
You don't need to dip at all. just pick up Heavy Armour Proficiency... Or doesn't an Inquisition give you Heavy Armour Proficiency & Tower Shield while allowing you to use Inquisitor Abilities while using them?
Good to know about the cestus. If i get mithril heavy armor though, doesn't it still work with stalwart?
Also, no inquisitions give heavy armor and tower shield.Not trying to hijack this thread... if you want to help, i was asking for some help in this thread...
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p9a6?Need-some-help-with-building-a-character
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All in all, I think the system is exactly where it should be with regards to multiclassing and level-dipping.
Just about every class can succeed without a dip, and every class has some way of rewarding the player for sticking with it all the way to 20.
Meanwhile, level-dipping can still achieve some pretty impressive results.
Those who like to dip and multiclass can sit at the same table with those who pick their class and stick with it, and neither one will be made to feel like they're doing it wrong.
the PrC doesnt do anything or carry bard any further unlike other PrCs. It's cavalier-0-centric once you get into the PrC its battle herald/cavvy.... no bonus to bard stuff, it's just a weasly entry level requirement. With the exception of inspire courage and inspire greatness, there is no carry over the the original bard dip. No stacking no continued advancement, so unlike other PrCs that blend a multiclass character into something else and take select abilities and continue to carry them through leveling.... battle herald doesn't.well dipping and multi class are technically different things.
For example: Battle herald, I havent found a sound reason or build that would lead me to having more levels of bard than just one.... requires a dip.
It's entirely valid to take bard to 8 for battle herald. There's only 1 more BAB drop than a dip and you get dirge of doom. Also, you get enough third level castings to Good Hope important battles. You're dipping Cavalier instead, but that's because multiclassing is weak.
Multiclassing's weakness is what leads to dips. If you need some ability from another class to get into a PrC or make your concept work you have to dip because a near equal multiclass will almost invariably suck.
I disagree with this statement. While the PrC doesn't do anything to advance bard spellcasting, it does advance the bard's performances.
Battle Herald levels stack with Bard levels to determine Inspire Courage's bonus, so 7 levels of Bard will get you level 3 spells and the maximum of +4 inspire courage. (Exactly like how it progresses Banner and your uses of Tactician)
It lets you use your Inspiring Commands for Inspire Courage and Inspire Greatness, allowing you to use your Bardic Performances for Dirge of Doom or Inspire Competence to further augment your allies' combat abilities. I believe this is more important than gaining a slightly faster use of Tactician.
Since you will...
Expert trainer is a prerequisite for horse master which gives you full character levels to determine powers of your mount.
That presumes you want a mount. You're going to be leaving it outside most dungeons anyways. May as well leave it at home.
That's a really bad assumption 1,
2 it's a main feature of a cavalier
3 I've never seen any other build just walkaway from a feature and say...oh... ignore that.
I have never had any problems with taking my mount into a Dungeon. I have had problems with a Non-Class Mount dying.
depends on the dungeon/AP.
Never had an issue in most APs. Specifically good ones were LoF, RotRL, CC, SS plenty of open spaces.
Infact in SS there were very little places the samurai didnt take his mount. I can only recall one thing where the party had to climb and it wasn't far and dint take long.
In CotCT the Ronins mount has been captured by Gray Maidens and they are hiding out in a sewer, but that won't last long.
edit: i think that is alame requirement for horse master, because samurai dont get that class feature, which means only cavaliers can multiclass and get a full mount.... lame
I agree on Horse Master... I think it should just have a Mount/Animal Companion and Level requirement on them. Say an Effective Druid Level of 4?
or at least have a way of trading out mount for something else
I have seen a lot of Fighters that pick up multiple weapons. Even if only because they loot them from their enemies.
Heck, I made an Aldori Swordlord Fighter that is planning on going into the Prestige Class for at least 1 level. He might never use them but he carries around his favorite blades from foes. Even made a special magic item that can carry 10 Blades with only a small amount of weight.
My Fighter hunts "Aldori"* Duelists so he has a lot of "Aldori"* Dueling Swords...
Yikes, he has 15 of the blades with about 6 +1 of them...
Using Pathfinder's name as I don't want to give away a major sub-plot of her campaign yet... It really is getting good despite the fact that we are only ~231XP from level 2 and going on the 3 or 4 Months of the Campaign. Though we are on year 12 of Game World Time.
"All martial weapons" isnt a feature that doesnt get used. How many fighters to you see that only use simple weapons, there for ignoring their all martial weapons feature?
& most Fighters use at least 1 Simple Weapon.
|
|
that's like saying you don't use your light and medium armor prof if you're using heavy.
proficiency in armor or weapons is not really the same as the big class features that are unique. After all, everyone is proficient in some weapons... we don't consider them to be running around with a feat or two because of it.
I am actually going to dip a level into fighter for my inquisitor because i want to be able to wear heavy armor and use all martial weapons.
I had a similar dilemma.
For my Inquisitor (Anger Inquisition), I decided a 2 level dip in Barbarian (Armored Hulk) was the way to go. That way, I get access to Rage Powers as well as heavy armor and martial weapons. There are couple of great intimidate based rage powers that mesh well with a half-orc inquisitors massive intimidate bonuses (intimidating glare and Terrifying Howl) which I can use the Extra Rage Power feat on to get at the proper levels.
So, in regards to this thread, there are some cases where a level or two dip can be quite beneficial. But, it is hardly necessary.