| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
You and your DM's are pulling RAI out of nowhere. The rules, as both written and intended, allow for multiclassing. In fact Pathfinder removed the restrictions on multiclassing that 3/3.5 had that discouraged dipping. You may not like dipping, but to claim that this is the real intent is pure fallacy. If you want to ban it then ban it, but do not try to claim some sort of moral high ground for doing so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of my DMs strictly forbid dipping builds, because they play by RAI, and assume it was strictly not the intent to have that class feature used by other class... or their authors would simply just have made them as feats.
Okay, that is definitely not Rules As Intended.
That's Rules As Interpreted, which means they have a gut feeling they're following, even if there is a lot of proof that says otherwise.Nothing wrong with disliking multiclassing, but they should make it clear that they're implementing house rules.
Here's what the Core Rulebook has to say about multiclassing. Completely allowed.
The same section gives us the rules for our Favored Class. If dips/multiclassing wasn't "RAI", then why do we even choose a favored class?
****
Some players on those forums however frown at this limit, saying it's not normal coming from a DM to bring such a limitation, cherishing their powerbuilding...
Somehow, this sentence seems a bit biased.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI does nothing to forbid dips... nothing in the rAW or RAI says that there must be a certain parity between original and secondary classes... to a point, with so many interesting class abilities being granted in very early levels, I'd say that the game is built for dippiing, even if the lvl20 cap rewards show that the intent is for characters to actually reach lvl20.
Personally, when it comes to making my own characters, I hate dipping... then again, I might indulge in it if I found and interesting and coherent build that demanded it.
Also, define 'dipping', if my character who's level x in one class, takes a level in another class, as per OP's version, that's dipping, even if intent is to take as many levels in the secondary class as in the primary one starts with dipping. Most PrCs require some degree of dipping in the build, and they are an integral part of the game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very much in agreement with Val'bryn2. In my Rise of the Runelords game, my daughter wanted to play a spellcaster who was also adept with a sword.
Our party already has a Magus, so I wanted to steer her towards something other than that. When I mentioned the Eldritch Knight Prestige class, her eyes lit up and she said "That. That's what I want."
Our party is currently Level 6, so her character is a Swashbuckler 1/Wizard 5. But she doesn't tell people that. "I'm a squire to Ser Allistair Smythe, and an apprentice to Hoblien the Revered. I'm an Eldritch Knight in training."
Once she hits level 7, she plans to jump into Eldritch Knight and never look back, meaning she'll be a Swashbuckler 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 1.
On paper, that looks like two dips. But it absolutely isn't. And in some ways, she's more restricted than she would be as either a Wizard 7 (she'd have 4th level spells!) or a Swashbuckler 7. But it absolutely fits her character concept.
All of which is a long way to say "Dipping isn't always about power gaming. Sometimes it's the only way to build a concept." And the good folks at Paizo wouldn't have made multi-classing easier than it was in 3.5 if being able to multi-class wasn't intended.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
cherishing their powerbuilding...
Stop, please. Like cripes, drop the attitude. You're insulting everyone who ever cared about a theme enough to pore over the system looking for ways to achieve it, and everyone who put work in to get a particular playstyle they liked, or just anyone who ever had fun putting different ability sets together to see what they could do. There's cost/benefit to all of this and it takes a bit of scrutiny and care to work it all out, especially when PrCs tend to eat your saves.
If someone cares about nothing but being powerful (and honestly, that's fine too as long as they're not jerks), they'll just build an arcanist and call it a day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules make an effort to make multi-classing a valid option. That's different then saying multi-classing is required. Favored classes where introduced as a way to turn a penalty into a bonus, so that it would become a viable option.
What's nice is if you want to play a standard rogue or wizard you can absolutely do this and many classes got major overhauls in order to make not multi-classing a completely viable option. In 3.0 there was little to no reason to take a class past 5th level or even 2nd if you could manage it, because you could either continue in your current class and get marginal increases in abilities that maybe you don't even care about or you could take a prestige class and get new and exciting useful abilities, while still advancing your core abilities normally.
When it comes to mutli-classing you can either do it or not. But don't think that you shouldn't or that it's somehow breaking the rules. Prestige classes like mystic theurge and arcane trickster are designed to give characters a way to advance in two different classes in a way that won't cause them to fall further and further behind the group. These both come from the CRB so you can't say it wasn't originally part of the system. It's such a nonissue I don't think I've asked a DM if I can multi-class since... well, ever. Nor do I recall ever being told that I couldn't.
Also, dipping is mostly done, and almost exclusively beneficial to, martial characters. Making martial characters better is good for game balance!
I'm both a player and a GM, and I haven't dipped yet, but I see absolutely no reason beyond "martials can't have nice things" to disallow dipping.
In Pathfinder, class design* makes it so that dipping hurts. Sure, I could dip into Bloodrager on a Monk for more strength, but then I delay ki powers, styler strikes, unarmed damage, DR penetration, fast movement (relevant for Flying Kick), and the second bonus flurry attack.
*) There are some badly designed classes (most notably Gunslinger and Shifter) where multiclassing is a straight upgrade after a few levels, but those are rare.
Also, some of these things are aviable as feats (see the "Totemic" line in UW for rage powers), or as pseudo feats (see Variant Multiclassing).
Dipping is for martials? weird. I've dipped a few times, but that was mostly to make Mystic theurges or the warlock equivalent ... back when I played 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dips hurt more than they help in most cases, especially for casters. There are a few limited circumstances where this is not true but they are truly exceptional IMHO. If anything, powergamers avoid dips. In my experience, it's the folks who don't care as much about numbers that meander through a dip or two or three to fulfill a roleplaying desire rather than for the sake of optimization.
There are dips for different reasons, but my gut is always to go with "let the player build the character they want".
I've dipped into Paladin or Cleric before to get the story elements more firmly wrapped up on an otherwise martial character that didn't want to be more castery and go full paladin or warpriest or cleric.
I've dipped on casters to fighter to get that burst of feat boost (ray specialist for instance to speed up point blank and precise shots)- for characters who were slightly less powerful but focused on doing a particular thing.
There are a few classes that are probably a bit too dippable- monk (especially unchained), swashbuckler, a few archetypes (the paladin one that gets Precise shot bonus at 1st level), but I've never seen anything to say those were powergaming musts.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON DIPS?
Personally, I love dips; especially a fresh guacamole or some smooth hummus!
The rest of your post is some of the best "begging the question" fallacy I've ever seen. Thank you for that. Class dipping is perfectly fine and completely legal under both RAW and RAI; that's why rules for multiclassing exist.
Some players on those forums however frown at this limit, saying it's not normal coming from a DM to bring such a limitation, cherishing their powerbuilding...
This was hilarious, its like you were asking us the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for correct use of "begging the question".
Dips are a perfectly cromulent part of the game, as anybody who's GM'd a module or three would know from the various NPC stat blocks. Paizo did some work to make single classing more attractive when the game first came out, and they've continued that work, but they took the "carrot" approach rather then the "stick" approach--favored class bonuses, capstone abilities, hybrid classes, not frontloading all the good stuff at 1st level, etc. They did nothing to actively prevent people from multiclassing--and, in fact, left in many things that encourage it, such as prestige classes and various rules documenting how/whether particular class features stack when gained from multiple classes.
IOW, it's patently obvious that multiclassing is a thing. If OP finds it distasteful, I suggest OP refrains from doing so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Pretty much every build I make has multiclassing.
Sometimes I'll have a level each in fighter, brawler, and barbarian. Super fun!
For me it's less about "power - gaming" and more about making a unique build special to me, and can do a cool variety of tricks I thoroughly enjoy.
I don't get to play that much, so theory crafting is really all the Pathfinder I do. So, you like to mix things up.
|
Dips hurt more than they help in most cases, especially for casters. There are a few limited circumstances where this is not true but they are truly exceptional IMHO. If anything, powergamers avoid dips. In my experience, it's the folks who don't care as much about numbers that meander through a dip or two or three to fulfill a roleplaying desire rather than for the sake of optimization.
One of my PFS characters was getting TOO powerful for my tastes. So I intentionally dipped to make the character more rounded but LESS powerful :-)
|
Nah, some dips can cheat the power curve but most will make you sore later. Even a 1 level dip has a HUGE cost to anyone playing a caster.
And even then, dips are great for sealing a character's identity. Playing a Paladin but dipping Rogue or Swash or Vigilante (I guess less Swashbuckler now that the Bravo archetype is thing) can add some great flavour to the character, bring out a little identity and kick-start their fighting style.
I highly encourage dipping/multiclassing if for nothing more than skills and saves. Weapon and armor proficiency is also a large benefit from this in some cases.
Those benefits gained by a one level dip are often worth it even without picking up a class ability or bonus feat.
Think about a Fighter starting with one level of Investigator...
He takes a -1 hit to his BAB, but gains a +2 on both reflex and will saves.
He also gains:
Acrobatics for moving into threatened squares,
Diplomacy for not being useless out of combat,
Knowledge (all of them) for identifying his targets,
Perception so he is aware of combat,
Stealth for avoiding combat, and
Use Magic Device to use a wand of CLW or enlarge person.
Oh wait, there's more...
He also gains the Inspiration ability.
If the Fighter cared to grab an archetype during this dip, he could have the Mastermind's Inspiration, using it on Diplomacy and Intimidate without spending points from his pool.
Trading one BAB away to gain double your skills, a +2 to your weakest saves, and some nifty class abilities that the fighter never gets... What's not to love?
Why would ANY dungeonmaster EVER want a Fighter with no skills at their table? The better prepared the party is, the more fun it is to GM. I know I don't want to GM for a bunch of mundane generic pureblood classes that can't do stuff good. I want the party to be good at everything, in and out of combat, so that I can throw creative and fun challenges at them.
This is why I GM a gestalt campaign...
every one of my favourite characters from a system with classes has had a dip. And every one of them for majorly flavour reasons:
(3.5) Ralkin Brachyr was a rogue/trapsmith with a late game dip into Wizard. He liked to figure things out and was slowly figuring out magic.
(pf) Artemis Lahs was a level 2 fighter with a 7 level dip into rogue. A city guard with the personality of a paladin but with a skillset and drive that most paladins would look at and say "Dude, calm down"
(sf) Atlas-1 is an operative with a one level dip into technomancer to emphasize his knowledge of the space around him, and his control over machines.
While I agree a dip for an ability sucks. It can probably lead to cool character concepts if actually played to. The banning of dipping is like a softban on multiclassing unless you do it like 3.5, and Pathfinder 1e has been specifically designed and doesn't include 3.5's anti dipping rules.
Personally, I really don't care if my players want to dip 1 level into every classes, and then use variant multiclass on top of it, throwing an archetype or two on every single thing they can. If they handicap themselves, that is their own problem and they can either retrain (if they survive) or rebuild a new character later, wiser for their experience. I tend to frown upon gestalt, unless I SPECIFICALLY design a campaign around it.
As a player, my GM's tend to limit things to a single multiclass (a single prestige class in addition, if we are doing that), or using the variant multiclass rules with no actual multiclassing, and only using one class archetype (period). It is a bit restricting for my tastes, but that is only a restriction on build creativity. I can work around it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind a GM restricting options within a game, but I would be most put out if a GM started telling me how I could and couldn't build a character.
It's one thing to say "class y and archetype X are unavailable" and quite another to say "you cannot take a level in this class that is otherwise legal".
Personally, I really don't care if my players want to dip 1 level into every classes, and then use variant multiclass on top of it, throwing an archetype or two on every single thing they can. If they handicap themselves, that is their own problem and they can either retrain (if they survive) or rebuild a new character later, wiser for their experience. I tend to frown upon gestalt, unless I SPECIFICALLY design a campaign around it.
As a player, my GM's tend to limit things to a single multiclass (a single prestige class in addition, if we are doing that), or using the variant multiclass rules with no actual multiclassing, and only using one class archetype (period). It is a bit restricting for my tastes, but that is only a restriction on build creativity. I can work around it.
Out of curiosity, what is your GM's rationale behind those restrictions?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Counterpoint: Is it so different from taking a rank of Linguistics on level-up and suddenly knowing ancient Thassilonian?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclassing isn't allowed by RAI? Seriously? Then why do feats like Boon Companion exist? The ONLY reason for that feat is multiclassing.
I like to make characters even if I never end up playing them. Some of them are straight-classed like my Inquisitor and some are multiclassed like my Hunter/UnRogue. Sometimes I multiclass to improve abilities and sometimes it's for story reasons.
My Archaeologist Bard starts off with a level in Inspired Blade Swashbuckler. This is so she can do well enough in combat to stay alive. A character I'm currently building is a Sorcerer 3 / Wizard 4 / Swashbuckler X. This is because the character is a prince who's been trained in both magic and weaponry, has inborn magic, and to qualify for a dragon-like familiar that I really want him to have and requires a arcane caster level of 7.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if the character is illiterate, taking a level of wizard is basically just them calling themselves a wizard and gaining no benefit. Literacy is a given with any character in Pathfinder, so I'd imagine a character being specifically illiterate to also be low int, meaning they wouldn't be able to cast anything even if they could read.
Who is asking to suddenly make their illiterate character specifically into a wizard? Why? This example seems unrealistic to the point of being silly.
Well first of all, it serves no point except to illustrate an entirely imaginary scenario that is so far left of field it really has nothing to do with any realistic discussion about multiclassing. Second of all, if a player, fully understanding that it will do nothing for them, wants to take that one level of wizard, I really don't have an issue with it, because the game's mechanics are already preventing them from being a wizard, so they're really just getting one or two lackluster abilities that they could probably get with feats or rage powers anyway. I see absolutely no reason not to allow this; it's not enforcing a narrative on my game, because their stats already make them not a wizard despite being in the wizard class. Sure, they can get a familiar or a terrible acid ray, but there's a thousand and one ways to get a familiar, and there's like two or three easy ways for a Barbarian to shoot acid at people. Furthermore, if I really feel they need a justification, it takes two seconds to say "this barbarian flunked out of wizard school after getting in on a football scholarship." But really, the abilities they'd get are so minor, they don't really require explaining away as wizard powers, because they're things the barbarian could have gained from almost anywhere else more effectively.
You've illustrated a meaningless scenario that demonstrates nothing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I would recommend is Pathfinder Unchained Fractional Base Bonuses. This prevents insane Save building (the best candidate I can think of for worrying about power gamers dipping), but in exchange, it hoses Base Attack Bonus less — on the one hand, you can’t get the starting +2 twice to the same Save, but on the other hand, 1/2 BAB really means 1/2 BAB and 3/4 BAB really means 3/4 BAB, and the fractions stack to make whole numbers (often accompanied by smaller remaining fractions).
Edit: By the way, some classes have no capastone (Cleric) or a terrible capstone (lots of examples) (or a capstone that starts short of level 20 (Witch).
I mean, if the character is illiterate, taking a level of wizard is basically just them calling themselves a wizard and gaining no benefit. Literacy is a given with any character in Pathfinder, so I'd imagine a character being specifically illiterate to also be low int, meaning they wouldn't be able to cast anything even if they could read.
Who is asking to suddenly make their illiterate character specifically into a wizard? Why? This example seems unrealistic to the point of being silly.
There is a barbarian archetype that is illiterate, not requiring low intelligence, he could still have high int to cast spells or to use school powers if that's what he wanted it for, for instance Divination school allows you to act in the surprise round even if you fail perception check (and adding +1 to init).
Yes, it was an unrealistic example (thought the correspondence course for a wizard heavily implied that), but it served my point that there are times when a level dip is unjustified and as a DM, after talking to the player, wouldn't allow it.
IMO - not your call. The character is a players only part of the campaign they control, it should be theirs to build. Advise, sure. Ask for an in-game explanation, also fine. But telling someone they can't do something explicitly permitted, that is not so fine.
Even justification is hard to see the need for, really - there's enough 'unplayed' time in nearly any game to support someone learning new skills in the background, unless you role-play 'sitting around the campfire' for 2-6 hours...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that you and "most of your DM's" (how many is that exactly? Sounds like an exaggeration meant to serve as an appeal to authority) are being completely unreasonable.
As many have already stated, Paizo made dipping *easier* than it was in 3.0/3.5 (the base rules from which PF is built), so if anything the RAI support the opposite assertion.
I'm a DM and player; our group allows combined multiclassing and variant multiclassing (as well as fractional base bonuses, which I highly recommend), and while I wouldn't call anyone at our table a power gamer, we do like to build effective characters that fulfill their character fantasy (and we often use the excellent Bench-Pressing: Character Creation by the Numbers article as a way of measuring whether our builds are "effective").
Despite allowing so much freedom, the party for our Jade Regent campaign (in which I'm the DM) is:
* Dwarven Red Tongue Skald 8/VMC Order of the Flagon Cavalier
* Aasimar Drunken Master Sensei Monk 8
* Half-Elf Fermenter Alchemist 5/Brewkeeper 3
* Halfling Order of the Dragon Cavalier 8
* Half-Orc Unbreakable Fighter 1/Mesmerist 7
* Human Blade & Tankard Swashbuckler 8
Only one character has done any dipping, only one with a Prestige Class, and only one VMC. And the above pattern is pretty common across all of our parties (and not typical to specific players).
Out of curiosity, what is your GM's rationale behind those restrictions?
Preference, really. They tend to run adventure paths. Keeping to the 15 point buy and lower complexity character builds help keep everything running smoothly. Also, the two GMs that I play with don't have nearly enough time to keep up with every new bit of information released by Pathfinder and slowly integrate new material.
Overall, I am not too bothered by it. Minor annoyance but it doesn't effect my level of enjoyment of the game. The entire table plays by the same rules, and agreed upon the same rules. We can't say we weren't informed.
Hopefully we didn't scare them off! There's no badwrongfun in OP's stance so long as the table is okay with those restrictions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully we didn't scare them off! There's no badwrongfun in OP's stance so long as the table is okay with those restrictions.
My issue was not with the restrictions, but with the implication that the restrictions were "the one true way to play".
Out of curiosity, what is your GM's rationale behind those restrictions?Preference, really. They tend to run adventure paths. Keeping to the 15 point buy and lower complexity character builds help keep everything running smoothly.
This can easily end up being counter-productive, though: Limiting both the power and the 'ability to fulfill the character fantasy' of the weaker classes often leads to more people playing stronger classes (like full casters).
Also, the two GMs that I play with don't have nearly enough time to keep up with every new bit of information released by Pathfinder and slowly integrate new material.
Wait, what? Multiclassing is in the CRB. Even Unchained came out over 3 years ago, that's not exactly "new bit of information".
I believe DeathlessOne is referring to any potential dip, since every new book means new archetypes and new things you could possible get in a dip.
This can easily end up being counter-productive, though: Limiting both the power and the 'ability to fulfill the character fantasy' of the weaker classes often leads to more people playing stronger classes (like full casters).
Sure, it has the possibility to do so. But it has not happened in the five plus years we have been using the rules. Perhaps with different players, at different tables, with different approaches to gaming, it might present a problem. For example, if your first thought is to play a tier 1 God wizard when you don't get to play the heavily multiclassed build you were hoping for (even if it was mechanically weaker than a vanilla fighter), you are not compatible with our gaming group.
Wait, what? Multiclassing is in the CRB. Even Unchained came out over 3 years ago, that's not exactly "new bit of information".
That doesn't matter. People play at different rates and include new material at different rates. The only thing we've used consistently from the Unchained rulebook is the variant multiclassing options. One person took a three level dip in Unchained Rogue for the dexterity to damage. That's about it.
As I've stated before, I do not use this restriction in the games that I run. I am fairly on top of new material, as I maintain our HeroLab library of resources and build characters as a hobby.
I believe DeathlessOne is referring to any potential dip, since every new book means new archetypes and new things you could possible get in a dip.
Indeed. Instead of simply saying no to every new bit of information, the GM does allow new source materials. They simply restrict the amount of it being used until we all, as a group, become more familiar with it. Out of our group of 5-6, three of us alternate as GMs.
DM and player, I DM for about two hours before our main weekly game for the players who get there early, but I also run the main game from time to time as well.
Dipping is great. I don't really want my players struggling to make a class work for their concept if it has abilities they don't want or lacks abilities they do want. There are often archetypes or classes that are designed to fill the concept they want, but those too are often burdened with unnecessary extras that leave the character feeling very patchwork as an end result.
That said, dipping builds typically aren't going to exceed the power of a single classed wizard. You can really juice the the system for saves or bonus feats or what have you, but in the end you've made little progress compared to someone summoning monsters and such.
I have a couple super dip builds typed up on a note pad to use as comparison for players who want something homebrewed. I'll check what they want against the super-dipper to help me eyeball the progress I should give them on any new ability. It's also a good guideline to ensure I'm not over optimizing a character or falling too far behind main line progress on any particular character aspect. It also helps with pacing as many super dipper builds rely on a certain pace that should be avoided to ensure some powers aren't more relevant than they aught to be.
I have dipped with virtually every character I've played who reached/started at level 6+, either by regular-dipping or multi-classing. It has never actually made me more powerful (with perhaps one exception) than if I had just gone with the straight class. I would be outraged if any GM tried to ban my unoptimized, purely-for-fun shenanigans.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on dips?
My favorite dip would be either hot crab and artichoke dip served with baguette toasts, or chorizo queso dip with tortilla chips... but good ol' French onion dip with potato chips is still a winner!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
remember, all serious multiclassing starts with dipping
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
remember, all serious multiclassing starts with dipping
*insert joke here about double dipping*
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I usually don’t post when the OP never returns after the first post but,....
I am almost exclusively the DM and I have no problem with multiclassing.
There are three things I feel are important from a DM’s perspective: The Player should be able to play something he or she will enjoy; the DM should have a handle on the Class features/mechanics of the characters being played, and by far most importantly, all of the PCs should be balanced with each other.
As DM I don’t know the Occult book and most of the softcover splat books, so since I don’t know them, they’re pretty much not allowed. But if someone really wants to play something from one of those sources I’ll make an effort to look at it to see if maybe I can learn it easily and allow it.
The key is balance between PCs. Whenever one PC is substantially greater or lesser than another, I take the Player aside and work with him or her to modify the PC. Most recently I nerfed a PC archer because he was grossly better than the other PCs. We worked something out away from the game. There have been three times in the last handful of years where I took a Player aside and gave the PC more power or ability because they were considerably weaker than the other PCs in the group (always newer Players, not yet able to really take advantage of the possible PC builds).
I tell my Players to build what they want to build. If their PC is way more powerful than the other PCs, I’ll work with them to nerf the PC a bit.
. . . .
As a Player myself, the rare times I get to run a PC, I LOVE multiclassing!
I love making a build I know is going to be different than the seemingly cookie-cutter PCs that show up at the gaming table (especially in PFS), and also because I can build the PC I want to play— high Bluff & Diplomacy, great Knowledge Skills, and a reasonably good melee combatant (like a medium BAB PC).