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?
Its all about customization and character feel... One of the great things about PF though is the kits and archtypes. you can get the smattering that you want without having to dip...
Thanks to the Archeologist Bard, I will never multiclass him again!
As a GM talk to your characters about what they want to do, make up your own kits, and encourage them to stick with it.
Its all about customization and character feel... One of the great things about PF though is the kits and archtypes. you can get the smattering that you want without having to dip...
Thanks to the Archeologist Bard, I will never multiclass him again!
As a GM talk to your characters about what they want to do, make up your own kits, and encourage them to stick with it.
How would I go about making up kits? Is there rules or a guide on how to do it?
To me level dipping was almost always a sign of power gaming. I rarely encountered a player who level dipped for role playing purposes. It was almost always some mechanical advantage they were seeking.
I never discouraged it, banned it or even really questioned it, I would just ask the player to document in their backstory why their wizard suddenly developed an interest in rogue, or whatever.
I have not yet encountered level dipping in any of my Pathfinder games. So far every character in all of the groups we've played have stuck with one class. I take that as a sign that PF has done a pretty good job of discouraging level dipping for mechanical reasons.
Don't think so, just ask them what they want to do... Like with the Archeologist Bard, he gives up Performance to get trapfinding and some other interesting rougey abilities. that is right up my ally. If your character wants to multiclass, then ask them what it is that they want from the two classes, and see if you can trade out abilities. just be careful that things stay balanced... I wouldn't let a fighter trade feats for spells levels, but maybe weapon training.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why should a new GM have to create his own archetypes rather than simply allow multiclassing?
If a dm doesn't like multiclassing, then this is a fair compromise, and can be a lot of fun.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me Multiclassing is simply to get my character the abilities needed for their fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just like to multiclass, that way I can customize my char better. And on top just going with a single class seems bland and boring for me (personal/subjective)and I am sure often it is a suboptimal choice.
Sadly the guys I mainly game with think that level dipping is automatically and always powergaming.
Another point is that I do not like the stuff some classes get at higher levels. For example the bard: I love the fluff and I like inspire courage but I don't like most of the other bardic performances, so I just grab a few levels and then bail out to something more interesting. And as for archetypes: The most which I find interesting replace just what I like or give me stuff that I would not use anyways.
The pure fighter is cool but doesn't have the versantility that magic gives you. The ranger is interesting fluff wise and gains a little magic but I don't like how his combat styles work and I hate the favored terrain ability.
I could go on but in the end no class in itself does what I want. So I multiclass.
In AD&D there was a "build your own class" option. It was cool but no GM allowed it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on what you're trying to get out of the character. For instance, a one or two level dip into sorcerer can be a great choice for many archers: Take gravity bow and true strike as your 1st level spells known, as well as the Magical Lineage (gravity bow) trait and the Still Spell feat if your main class wears armor; true strike has no somatic component and can be cast in armor without a chance of failure and Magical Lineage lets you apply Still Spell to gravity bow (also allowing you to cast in armor without a failure chance) without increasing the effective spell level. The wildblooded bloodlines Arcane/Sage and Celestial/Empyreal let you use Int or Wis as the casting stat instead of Cha, so you don't have to have an 11+ Cha. Likewise, a two level dip in barbarian (fast movement, rage, and one rage power; can take the Extra Rage Power feat), a one or two level dip in fighter (bonus feats), or a one to three level dip in rogue/ninja/vivisectionist alchemist (Sneak Attack and rogue talent/ninja trick/alchemist discovery) can be a great idea for a combat focused character.
Also, many of the prestige classes encourage or even require multiclassing. In this case, dipping may be the best or only option.
On the other hand, dipping delays access to your main class features. Not all campaigns actually reach the point where the 20th level (or even 10th level prestige class) capstone is gained, but some of the other abilities can be pretty good. As stated, archetypes reduce the "need" to multiclass for a character to gain the abilities that a player may want to match a concept.
On the whole, Pathfinder makes staying in a single base class slightly more beneficial in many instances. However, multiclassed/prestige classed characters are still usually viable; they're just not the "always mechanically superior" choice that they were in 3.5. This is a good thing IMO, since it encourages exploration of a character concept instead of a single hyper-optimized "build" (usually just a grab-bag of various base and prestige class levels with specific feats to stack benefits without any consideration of why or even how someone would progress in that way). As usual, YMMV...
I have found that If you combine the Classes in the right combo you will never actually gimp yourself at any given level.
Sticking with one class is perfectly legitimate and, frankly, the only way higher level features will ever see the light of day. Multi-classing helps accomplish what the class alone cannot.
I have dipped simply because I tend to get bored easily. It gives me something new to play with. I took this to extremes when I decided to play a character who took one level of a class and never a second. I had a 7th level character with 7 different classes. Awesome saves, decent BAB and skills, but sucky class abilities for the level. It was fun though.
I honestly see dipping only when Higher levels aren't part of the Equation.
Such as PFS or APs.
Knew one guy who played Star Wars in the RPGA Living Force campaign. His dedicated goal was to never rise above 0 BAB. Kept that goal through seventh level.
Priceless...
I was helping a friend who wanted a rogue/sorc (10th level net). I kept playing with it, and started reducing the levels of Ro and increasing Sorc. Every time, it was better to go more sorc.
My Bard took a level of Cleric for extra healing. Altho it worked fine for a couple of levels, I now regret it every time I play here.
Most of the Optimizers here are remnants from the old 3.5 Char Opt boards, where everyone dipped like mad.
There's a oracle/pally mutliclass that works, but in general, unless you want to go for a PrC (and why?) or need it for RPing reasons, dipping isn't a goo idea.
Paizo got it right.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
There are prestige classes that require multiclassing to fulfill entry requirements. It is not always a sign of gaming the system, despite there being many more mechanical reasons than roleplay reasons to do so.
Plenty of classes, including ALL casters (the most powerful classes) don't want to dip, at all.
Diping can be good for other classes, it lets you pick up certain things you might want for your character. What's waiting in your base class might not all be things you care about for your character concept.
As for capstones.... in the case of Paladin, I recommend people to dip out to AVOID the capstone. Holy balls is it horrible!
Not a capstone, but on a similar note, due to a wrinkle in Coordinated Charge, every Cavalier's wet dream of a teamwork feat, having a BAB of +11 required and Cavaliers getting a bonus teamwork feat at level 10 and their screwy rules for only being able to grant class-gained teamwork feats to allies, means that paizo basically declared that all cavaliers should 1-level dip into another full BAB class before Cav 10. :D
Remember that Cavaliers are able to give other Teamwork Feats later on.
|
|
There are quite a few dips that can really add something to your character depending on your concept and the campaign you're playing in. Extra feats and abilities that grant rerolls are the ones that really stick out to me, and can be useful the entire campaign, not just the first few levels.
A level of cleric can really add some survivability to a fighter, for example. More fort and will, plus two domains. Luck, Protection, and Travel are all great for dipping. You also get CLW and shield, two good early spells.
A level of Wizard with the Foresight subschool gets you prerolled d20s to help make sure you hit or save when it counts. Plus with your familiar at arm's length you get Awareness and a skill or initiative bonus. Great for archers.
Fighter is great for the bonus feat. The unbreakable archetype is notable for granting two feats: Endurance and Diehard. May not seem so great but can really help make a tough character.
In 1E multiclassing was REALLY common. 1) you couldn't get a halfling sheriff, or a elf that fought with sword and spells without it, that came from the basic game that preceeded it.
2) if you were a race other than human, you were often very limited in levels, so you might as well multiclass.
2E gave kits that made multi classing less necessary to get certain character concepts. And the most popular fighter/cleric and Ranger/clerics were no longer necessary to get a cleric with a sword. Before feats, there was no way to get a cleric with a sword, without multi classing (how DID they do dragon high lord Verminaard?)
3/3.5 brought on the ridiculousness of "the build" and optimizing. Before, power gamers were either whiners (I want more goodies) or almost always, cheaters. This is the first time powergamers could REALLY do it BY THE rules (usually unforeseen rules loopholes)
Pathfinder started put with core, and the intention of making mutliclassing less common by eliminating dead levels and other class design features (no cross class skills being a big one)
But as the game has grown, Multi class is back with a vengence.
I for one, think allowing monk and paladin multi class was a mistake.
but it's not game breaking.
Popular mutliclass concepts of yesteryear : Cleric/Ranger , Fighter/Cleric, Ftr/Mu/thief and Fighter/thief. Can all be done other ways now.
Multiclassing these days is another animal.
But another point is, you almost can't prestige class without multiclassing. So the existence of PrC encourages multiclassing.
Rage prophet is a personal fave and i recently discovered the poorly named, by really cool battle herald.
Too bad Archetpyes and classes like magus didnt come out first... PrCs would likely not even exist in pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that on board discussions, simple and obvious things are cursorily mentioned, more specific and detailed things require more exposition and discussion. A full class build doesn't need much description, how it works is obvious from the class write-up. A multi-class build needs description and discussion to understand. Plenty of people play with, and could recommend, single-class builds, it's just that the more complicated multi-class builds will have more 'verbiage' on the messageboards by deign of their complication.
People mentioned single-class builds for high level games (Capstones), but they are also relevant in lower level-limit games like PFS, if you multiclass you aren't going to see 12th level class abilities, and all other ones will be delayed meaning you won't see them in play for many levels. The entire field of race-specific Favored Class bonuses makes single-class builds even more relevant. Ultimately, it comes down to each player, but nobody would argue that Pathfinder has not made Single Class builds more competitive and 'respectable' compared to the option of Multi-Class builds. Both Casters and 'Melee'(/Mundane Ranged) have strong reasons to stay single class. Sometimes there are good reasons to consider multi-classing, and that can often correspond with interesting character stories as well :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Capstones are always lame, you get them at the end of a character. a "Title" ability at 12th would be more appropriate. When yu get your capstone it's time to make a new character and start a new campaign.
|
@Pendagast:
If i remember right from 2nd ED, several classes got what was in effect a "capstone" at name level, which was around 9th level, the Cleric being the exception where theirs was 8th i believe. That mainly focused on gaining followers.
Curious, has anyone tried to create a less potent capstone ability for mid-level characters? I understand that a lot of folks will never really see 20th level, that's why i ask.
There is no conflict between 20th level Capstones and lower Tier abilities,
you get both eventually if you go to 20th level, and you get the lower Tier abilities earlier.
Pretty much most classes have unique abilities that kick at various points mid-level,
Barbarian Rage Powers like Come and Get Me are available at 12th level, for instance.
There are various Class Level Pre-Req Feats, besides Class Abilities themselves (Paladins, Mobile Fighters, Sorceror Bloodlines, etc)
You can 'create'/homebrew such new abilities, but the standard game is already full of them.
@Pendagast:
If i remember right from 2nd ED, several classes got what was in effect a "capstone" at name level, which was around 9th level, the Cleric being the exception where theirs was 8th i believe. That mainly focused on gaining followers.
Curious, has anyone tried to create a less potent capstone ability for mid-level characters? I understand that a lot of folks will never really see 20th level, that's why i ask.
Umm I dont recall 2e extremely well because I dont think we knew it was 2e at the time, skills were kinda lame the whole non weapon proficiency thing. The kits were tons and varied, i don't recall changes to core classes at all?
Yea a 'name' or 'Title' level ability would be better than a capstone. Maybe certain higher level class abilities could build off or use the name ability as a prerequisite, but the "Big Bang" the reason to BE this class, should be a reality at.... 12th I think.
Not everyone who multiclasses is a powergamer.
That is a myth, probably because of 3.5 gamers.
This is true but some are and it's the DM's job to identify those who are and tell them to stop themselves!
|
|
Yea, i guess it could be a mixed bag trying to do that, especially with the classes out there that get abilities at every level or every other level. Cool, i was just curious :)
If i knew for certain though that i could make it work without adding problems, i might look into it. With the limited gaming i and others within our "core" group manage to squeeze in, it might be something to consider. At least at this point, 20th level would be impossible, but such is life ;)
Pathfinder rewards those who stick with their class.
I wish more players would remember the work that went into removing dead levels and encouraging players to stay in class, alas some people just can't help themselves!
I for one, think allowing monk and paladin multi class was a mistake.
Why?
Why was it a restriction in the first place?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Pendagast:
If i remember right from 2nd ED, several classes got what was in effect a "capstone" at name level, which was around 9th level, the Cleric being the exception where theirs was 8th i believe. That mainly focused on gaining followers.
Curious, has anyone tried to create a less potent capstone ability for mid-level characters? I understand that a lot of folks will never really see 20th level, that's why i ask.
Umm I dont recall 2e extremely well because I dont think we knew it was 2e at the time, skills were kinda lame the whole non weapon proficiency thing. The kits were tons and varied, i don't recall changes to core classes at all?
Yea a 'name' or 'Title' level ability would be better than a capstone. Maybe certain higher level class abilities could build off or use the name ability as a prerequisite, but the "Big Bang" the reason to BE this class, should be a reality at.... 12th I think.
Lol, brother, 2nd is what i grew up on ;)
I have that twisted love of ThacO, weapon and non-weapon proficienies, and i definately loved the saving throw tables, lol.
*Note: I'm in no way attempting to be confrontational with you Stuart, just making a point.*
This is true but some are and it's the DM's job to identify those who are and tell them to stop themselves!Not everyone who multiclasses is a powergamer.
That is a myth, probably because of 3.5 gamers.
That's the Stormwind Fallacy right there. Optimizing is not a bad thing, and saying they should "stop themselves" is at the least insinuating something that is downright insulting.
Sticking to one class does not make you a "Better" player. If you can't accomplish what you want your character to do within that one class (either flavor-wise OR mechanically), you shouldn't feel like looking outside that class for answers is somehow wrong. Alas, these threads usually devolve into that kind of conclusion.
I wish more players would remember the work that went into removing dead levels and encouraging players to stay in class, alas some people just can't help themselves!
And that's why a large number of players do stick to one class these days. But I'd say you're being a real stick in the mud if you're saying that NO ONE EVER should be allowed to multi-class. Casters of all kinds are almost exclusively single-classed characters, Paladins and Monks generally stay to their base class (at least in my experience), and all the other classes are perfectly viable on their own, but that doesn't mean that they cover all the bases you want a character to cover. Yes, some players multi-class to optimize, but did you know that some of those optimizers can find the process of deciding how to make a character better as fun as playing the game?
People derive enjoyment from Pathfinder in many different ways, if you don't enjoy a particular way, that's fine at your table, but I like to take up character building challenges just as much as I like to roleplay. There's no excuse for stomping on someone's enjoyment when it's not hurting yours.
Note: An interesting treatise about the types of game players by Mark Rosewater (a lead designer for Magic:The Gathering) is here, it's a little bit awkward to match the different psychographics to Pathfinder players, but I think that the basic concepts of different types of gamers, who each have different expectations about the games they play, applies.
*End Rant*
I wish more players would remember the work that went into removing dead levels and encouraging players to stay in class, alas some people just can't help themselves!
And yet, there is still Sorcerer 2 and Cleric 2...
Remember that Cavaliers are able to give other Teamwork Feats later on.
Yeah, at level 17. Or he can just dip a level and get to use the feat he wants (ie, make sure others have it so he can use it) at level 11. No big deal, though, I guess. It'd be like if a wizard got Time Stop at level 11 instead of 17. They're practically the same level!
And yet, there is still Sorcerer 2 and Cleric 2...
And yet it's actually a pretty strong and plausible build to go full-class Sorceror all the way to 20 now.
Pathfinder has made specific Class Abilities more relevant to all classes.You can mix and match lower level abilities by multiclassing, or gain the higher level class abilities by not.
@Pendagast:
If i remember right from 2nd ED, several classes got what was in effect a "capstone" at name level, which was around 9th level, the Cleric being the exception where theirs was 8th i believe. That mainly focused on gaining followers.
Curious, has anyone tried to create a less potent capstone ability for mid-level characters? I understand that a lot of folks will never really see 20th level, that's why i ask.
Umm I dont recall 2e extremely well because I dont think we knew it was 2e at the time, skills were kinda lame the whole non weapon proficiency thing. The kits were tons and varied, i don't recall changes to core classes at all?
Yea a 'name' or 'Title' level ability would be better than a capstone. Maybe certain higher level class abilities could build off or use the name ability as a prerequisite, but the "Big Bang" the reason to BE this class, should be a reality at.... 12th I think.
Lol, brother, 2nd is what i grew up on ;)
I have that twisted love of ThacO, weapon and non-weapon proficienies, and i definately loved the saving throw tables, lol.
Say no to Thac0! I largely ignored it past the first few levels and we went with high rolls.... you need an X or more to hit this guy... unless something was pathetic, then I would reference Thac0 chart briefly.
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.