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.
thats true, and that was a very good dip there, something I would have done, instead of fighter, myself.
Cavaliers are excellent. Heck, in most dungeons I have seen, if they are made using common sense, a Small Cavalier is fine at the very least. And that is assuming low levels, by the time you would be able to fight effectively while mounted a Medium Cavalier will be perfectly fine.
Stat up and share your real life professional resume in Pathfinder class notation, similar to the example above. Count years of paid employment only.
Then tell us again what you think of multiclassing in Pathfinder.
I like this idea =) Let's see....
3 years of summer-only work as a warehouse/inventory gopher - about 1 year in total, give or take
1 year of Telemarketing (Hell)
2 years as a Handyman's Assistant
7 years as a Data Entry Clerk (split into increments of .5/.5/3/.5/.5/2 due to bouncing between temp agencies and poor economy)
Commoner 2/Expert 9
I commonly see human non-full-bab martial classes (and sometimes bards) begin with a dip into a full-bab martial class (usually fighter) because they want to use the human bonus feat on a feat that requires a +1 BAB and/or because they want a big hit die for first level, since that one is always max and you have to live past first level.
I see monks begin with a dip into fighter (unarmed archetype) for the reasons above and because of the "all monk weapons" proficiency, since monks don't actually get proficiency with all monk weapons.
Cool. And do you play or allow multiclassing?
I allow pretty much anything. My standard game is a 3.5/PF mashup, I've got a great deal of homebrew stuff available, and I've dabbled heavily in Gestalt.
I think I'm mutliclassing for the first time in Pathfinder soon. Huh.
multi classing isnt the same as level dipping.
Changing careers isn't dipping.
Dipping IS cherry picking.... I dip into fighter to get armor and weapon prof, I dip into monk to get feats and saves.
Dipping, by definition is to find the most economical way to get a desired mechanical result on a predetermined build.
IRL changing careers or jobs is life altering, many times where training or moving for that other job can cause ramifications like loss of pay for schooling or training etc etc.
Dipping is poof, now I have some fighter in my cleric. I got a free heavy armor feat, a free all martial weapons feat AND I get a FREE FEAT!
Was the purpose for that dip, the character joined an army, to fight off an incursion that as happening in the game? Nah, he just wanted to not spend two feats to get heavy armor and battle axe, so he dipped...
Usually, in my games people make characters like : I'm a barbarian... headed for rage prophet... ok you know he's going to get at least a level of oracle there. You discuss with the player what the story is, blah blah and help him make it happen along the way, because he wants to play a rage prophet.
In another case, my wife wanted to do something with her character ( a rogue) and was having trouble figuring out what, I suggested using shadowdancer to do it. The multi classing gave her the end result...which had something to do with dazzling display, intimidation, sneak attack and HiPS...i cant recall the combo.
I can't remember anyone at the table deliberately jumping around for mechanical advantage of stealing feats etc. Prc's have prerequisites to meet and are usually a variant of the main class, or a mash up of two classes into a different path. So don't qualify as a 'dip' because most of the time they require something that is non optimal (like skill ranks or a feat) I think that was done on purpose to avoid the dipping thing.
Story purposes makes sense.
I had a guy at the table who had a fourth level bard, his character was miserable, he wanted to play another character, he was just....not effective.
He eventually went into Dragon Disciple after he found a book in a treasure trove that helped him research dragon blooded lineage blah blah. basically I helped him change his character to make it more interesting, and for for him.
It worked, mostly.
That would be like a midlife crisis. Quitting your job as a doctor, to enjoy your unrealized childhood fantasy of being a helicopter pilot....
Generally I don't see the DIP at my table, and I probably would require an explanation with plenty of in game time around the specialized training to take a level of fighter or two levels of monk.
Not that I havent seen monk/clerics and monk/paladins at the table. But they have been deliberate from the get go and had the player started his character at level 2, he would have been a 1/1.
That's multiclassing.
Taking 1 level of fighter or barb or whatever at level 5 or 6, not needing it to go into a PRC.... that's dipping ,IMO and needs to be explained why the character is doing it, Not "it get's me feats"
it all depends. I would say that a wizard with a dip in crossblooded sorcerer dragon/elemental is not ok. That's just powergaming. But on the otherhand, I have a Inquisitor who is obsessed with killing undead. It's his only reason for existing. So he has a level cleric so that he can get channel energy (and the feat that stacks INQ and Cleric levels) and a level of ranger so that he gets the favored enemy bonus. That is also dipping, AND it is for mechanical short cuts. But it is fully driven by character background and fluff. That makes it ok. Admittedly, that is the ONLY multiclass character I have every seen at our table.
I had a Character who was a "Grenadier" I needed 2 levels of Fighter, 1 level of Gunlinger, & The rest in Alchemist(Grenadier).
It was the only way to get all the abilities he used in combat.
Single class characters are to me like meals consisting of a single ingredient. How can you live like this?
It tickles me to no end that some people playing single class characters think that they're better role-players and somehow morally superior to multiclass characters. Take a few middle-aged persons on the street and ask them how many jobs they've had, how many trades they've learned, how many careers they advanced for a while. The people I find most interesting are those that have had more than one.
Single class characters are to me like meals consisting of a single ingredient. How can you live like this?
The ingredient is awesome and keeps being awesome?
That doesnt make them any better than someone who sticks with a profession.
The status quo used to be find a job, stick with it retire after 20.
With most pensions gone or raided. That's not longer an attraction. With most companies charging more for their benefits and a lot of companies not even offering benefits, staying in the same job is less attractive. People move more than they have in the past (usually for work).
A lot of contributing factors there.
But not one says, Im working to work as a milk man for a few months because it's really going to strengthen my resume!
That doesnt make them any better than someone who sticks with a profession.
The status quo used to be find a job, stick with it retire after 20.
With most pensions gone or raided. That's not longer an attraction. With most companies charging more for their benefits and a lot of companies not even offering benefits, staying in the same job is less attractive. People move more than they have in the past (usually for work).
A lot of contributing factors there.
But not one says, Im going to work as a milk man for a few months because it's really going to strengthen my resume!
I know lots of people who have changed jobs. I only know a few who have changed careers. I am one, I've done it three or four times.
But almost every one of my long time friends who have had many more "jobs" than I have have stuck to the same career. Job =/= career. I don't think I'm any more "interesting" than my single-career friends.
How did this become a moral or "badwrongfun" argument? I mean beyond how every argument in this hobby eventually seems to become "badwrongfun" to someone.
Why did I change careers? First was just that I decided I wanted to be the first in my family to graduate from college. So I did. Then I decided that a pure business career offered more pay than the college degree I studied for, so I took a pure business job. Then I purchased a home computer, learned how to program it, and discovered that I loved programming. Then I got married, had a family and realized that it was more lucrative to manage programmers than it was to write programs. So I learned management.
So, I guess I am a "construction worker/physicist/auditor/programmer/manager". Not sure how those work together for anything. Maybe I'm a TechManager Priority class? I dunno. I think if I had just gone straight management from the start I'd probably be a VP by now. C'est la vie.
Getting back to the game though... I don't see either straight classing or multi-classing as being inherently superior. I don't see how one is a better "role playing" foundation than the other, but then I rarely make game mechanics the basis of my role playing anyway.
To me the thing that sometimes makes me roll my eyes is the "I took a level of monk to boost my saves" sort of argument. Saving throws are pure metagaming artifacts. Presumably an actual character isn't even aware of any such thing as "saving throws" and so choosing a class based on saving throw adjustments strikes me as pure metagaming.
And in the end I think it's the pure metagaming aspect of level dipping that has always caused me to avoid it. It makes sense to me that a sneaky skill-monkey would want to dabble in magic and so a rogue with sorcerer dips seems highly plausible. But the more complex synergistic builds that are designed to achieve a mechanical end based on deep delving into obscure combinations of unlikely feats or class abilities do sort of make me shake my head.
|
So when you make a character, do you just randomly roll the stats after you pick the class? We can extend your metagaming argument pretty far with only a few steps.
After all how aware of their stats is a character? Wouldn't they want to be an <insert class> regardless of their stats?
After first level, shouldn't you only put skill ranks into skills you have actually used (and thus had a chance to improve)
Do you randomly select feats as you level? If you don't, why not, aren't you just gaming the system to get the best benefit for your character?
Originally, before build points (which is a poopy system) when you rolled a character, it sort of spoke to you... ok, what can I make of this.
Then it became roll a line of 4 or 5 stats and choose the one you want.
Then it just devolved into people refusing to play what they rolled, so they would roll and roll and roll until the got something they wanted. (hence the point buy system was created to be an answer to that silliness)
So in the beginning, you rolled stats, and chose a character class that you could pull off with it.
There were rules like must have a minimum stat of 9 in the classes primary score.
So you couldnt have a thief with an 8 dex for example.
I did have a thief with a 9 dex once.
This process more or less simulates a person gravitating toward a career choice that would best suit their aptitude. Strong fighters and smart mages.
Now with point buy, you decide what you want to be, and then assign your points as best you can to support what your character wants to do. This isn't meta gaming as much as it is eliminating rolling again and again.
At our table, we still roll and then make something out of it. It's part of the fun. Otherwise we just get the old builds over and over again, with the same stat blocks.
Selecting feats is one thing, dipping for mechanical advantage is another and isn't the same as a planned multi class.
IF you need some Sorc to get into Dragon Disciple O well. But the dipping to rob fighter or monk of it's feats just to further the armchair build is an exploit, it's annoying, distasteful and powergaming.
There is no shame in it.
Some people think it;s cool. Some don't.
Some tables might say, we don't do that here.
That's what house rules are for.
I recall seeing a build once that literally had no class over level 3 and the list of classes was almost the entire line of an 8.5x11. When I asked why, I was told it was a saving throw "build"
he just took classes that had good saves for the first level or two and kept hoping.....
|
|
I guess what I'm trying to point out is that it's simply your point of view that's causing this consternation with you.
I came from the same background of rolling up your stats, and shoehorning in what they could do to the stats.
Now people make a character concept and see what fits it best, and build it that way. Taking one level of unbreakable fighter on my barbarian DR tank isn't "cheating" or "gaming the system" or any other negative adjective you want to slap on it, it's making it work.
Take your example of the "saving throw build" what's the problem with it? Did the character somehow become more powerful than anything you have deemed reasonable? I'm guessing not, unless your definition of reasonable is extremely narrow and one class builds with sub-optimal choices.
An exploit is an unintended consequence that's leveraged for a benefit beyond the norm.
What you seem upset about is people using the rules and producing something superior to your vision of the game and it's characters, despite often times these "superior" or in your words "exploitative" characters are just there fitting an idea someone had or a concept.
I think anyone extolling the virtues of 8-bit games in our modern era, specially the ones that insist it's the way games should be played are plain nuts, they've failed to move on and progress with their view and suffer from the "back in my day" syndrome.
no Im defending my position on the difference between dipping, and why it's viewed as bad, and a mulitclass build.
If you want to build a bard/sorceror/rogue/barbarian/monk/paladin/assassin,
that changed alignment three times just to make the build happen with no explanation as to why this happened other than it needed to for me to take the classes... go a ahead.
I have never seen it allowed at any table I've played at, but if you can swing it past your DM, sure. go with it.
If your idea of a character means you have to have an astronomical reflex save so you can always evade? Rogue/Monk/Ranger it is! maybe even throw in enough levels of paladin to steal some CHA to saves.
I dont know anyone who thinks it's fun playing one. I haven't seen anyone get away with it while gaming. I've only heard stories or seen a character sheet. etc etc.
I have seen more than one told no. (especially on the alignment thing)
IF your changing your alignment just to get the class you want for the next phase of your build, or mysteriously picking up a random class in the middle of the darkwood of chaos, yea I consider it an exploit. And exploits ARE powergamming.
OR I'm sorry WHAT is the definition of power gaming then? Maybe I got it wrong?
Edit: it's also especially annoying because these people tend to be the first person to carry on about how superior their builds are and how uber intelligent the exploit is, and how inferior someone else's character is...blah blah blah.... yea I think that qualifies as annoying. They were the same people that kept rolling their characters until they got what they wanted, and the same people that flip out when they are told they can't play a barbarian /paladin. Yep just double checking, It's annoying
So when you make a character, do you just randomly roll the stats after you pick the class? We can extend your metagaming argument pretty far with only a few steps.
After all how aware of their stats is a character? Wouldn't they want to be an <insert class> regardless of their stats?
After first level, shouldn't you only put skill ranks into skills you have actually used (and thus had a chance to improve)
Do you randomly select feats as you level? If you don't, why not, aren't you just gaming the system to get the best benefit for your character?
Lantz, just for the sake of argument and full disclosure, I've been creating characters virtually the same way for decades. Here is my general character building and leveling process:
1. I roll stats. Unless rolling is disallowed and point buy is required.
2. I check with the GM and the player group to discuss what roles are currently filled, what newer players would like to play, and what sort of role would best be needed to fill out the "gaps". Since I've played forever I always give everyone else first shot at choosing their preferred character.
3. I build a concept around the role chosen. This is where I'll decide the specifics about how the character will perform their role. For a martial class will he/she be melee oriented? Ranged? Both? For a caster will he/she be a buffer? Controller? etc.
4. If point buy is required, I build out stats.
5. I pick a class. Virtually all games I play start at first level, so there's generally no chance to start a "level 8 character". On rare occasions that a higher level character is desired, I tend to pull out one of my currently inactive characters and use it.
6. I create the backstory. Sometimes this comes before picking a class, but usually the class is built into the backstory. The backstory determines the character's motivations, history, desires, goals, ambitions, etc.
7. I pick the specific details of the class, meaning archetype, feats, skills, etc.
8. As I play I do my best to fulfill the backstory and evolve it. If my character has an interest in learning a new skill, I will role play that into the character during the play. For example, my druid recently decided that Use Magic Device was a skill she wanted to develop. So before leveling, using her current skill level, she purchased a wand and began trying to use it, in spite of a very poor UMD score. The group enjoyed her attempts and frequent failures as we camped or did other things. Eventually she rolled high and was successful, which meant she gained a +2 to using the wand, so she "got better". Then, when she leveled, she dumped several skill points into UMD and from that point on she was a wand-using druid.
9. At each level up I revisit the updated backstory, history, goals ambitions, etc. and I decide which feats, skills and other options best fit that character's concept. In that sense I obviously "optimize" my choice, but the optimization is to fully develop the concept.
I'm not saying this is the "right" way to do it, and I have had power gamers tell me how I have "gimped" my character by doing it this way. But that's just how I do it.
So in the beginning, you rolled stats, and chose a character class that you could pull off with it.And still I have yet to roll up a 1st edition bard with this method.
I never saw a "REAL" paladin rolled up with that system with my own eyes either, except once.
Usually, the DM said "just make your Charisma 17 and Ill let you play a paladin"
One time, I had a 17 and everything else was 14 or lower.
I put the 17 in charisma, and played a paladin. I think he had a 14 strength, which back then was squat.
The only paladin I ever witnessed rolled up naturally.
Rangers were also really rare.
I don't believe I ever even played with a 1E bard at the table. I think I saw an NPC once if I remember correctly. Most people didn't even want to bother.
I am usually ok with a 1-2 lvl dip in a class before going on to another. Usually at our table it is allowed at lower lvls so your lvl 1-2 could be something then you head into your career. I only get annoyed when its x2/y5/z2/a4/b2/x1 style builds. At that point you are blatantly powergaming
|
|
I dont know anyone who thinks it's fun playing one. I haven't seen anyone get away with it while gaming. I've only heard stories or seen a character sheet. etc etc
So pendagast, most your problems you're addressing and bemoaning are problems you've never witnessed in person or even practically seen, you've just heard about it, or "on paper" it happened?
Gotcha. Rage at what might and may happen rather than what does happen.
As an aside, why does powergaming keep getting thrown around in this thread like it's a dirty word? What exactly is wrong with "powergaming"?
I like roleplaying. I usually put together a few pages of backstory, personality traits, quirks, flaws, contacts, significant enemies, and potential plot hooks for the GM to use to personalize the campaign.
I also like the game part of the roleplaying game, and I often spend a long time perfecting the build I'm going to use. This way I can express the character I'm playing in the most mechanically effective way, such that they and their companions have a minimal risk of failure.
What is so wrong about that that it enrages people like you, Pendagast?
I dont know anyone who thinks it's fun playing one. I haven't seen anyone get away with it while gaming. I've only heard stories or seen a character sheet. etc etcSo pendagast, most your problems you're addressing and bemoaning are problems you've never witnessed in person or even practically seen, you've just heard about it, or "on paper" it happened?
Gotcha. Rage at what might and may happen rather than what does happen.
no. I said Ive never seen them allowed at the table, NOT that I have never seem them tried, Or that I havent seen their character sheets from another table depicting what they had done in the past with the "see this other guy let me do it" line.
I am usually ok with a 1-2 lvl dip in a class before going on to another. Usually at our table it is allowed at lower lvls so your lvl 1-2 could be something then you head into your career. I only get annoyed when its x2/y5/z2/a4/b2/x1 style builds. At that point you are blatantly powergamingEven the many classed builds can be legitimately made to not be power gaming and sometimes building a concept will require picking up a few class abilities. Many PrCs require 2 classes and you'd be x3/y3/z10. Many characters in traditional fantasy books have been a variety of classes. Elminster, of the realms, was a rogue, cleric, fighter, wizard in the novel. Even a woman at one point.
Its all up to the player to RP it.
True and when I build characters my 3 first steps is what do I want this character able to do, how does he do it (magic spells or extaordinary/supernatural abilities)and why does he do it? I will take suboptimal abilities to fit the concept too (although i look at it and cry since at heart i am a power gamer and always want to be awesome).
But I usually frown if to accomplish a task has you dipping into so many different things...it just feels wrong to me. 2 or 3 classes are fine but if your lvl 15+ build includes 5+ classes I find it just wrong. Unless you are just making Pun-Pun or some other theoretical character for the joy of it then be my guest. For actual play....no gracias.
As an aside, why does powergaming keep getting thrown around in this thread like it's a dirty word? What exactly is wrong with "powergaming"?
I like roleplaying. I usually put together a few pages of backstory, personality traits, quirks, flaws, contacts, significant enemies, and potential plot hooks for the GM to use to personalize the campaign.
I also like the game part of the roleplaying game, and I often spend a long time perfecting the build I'm going to use. This way I can express the character I'm playing in the most mechanically effective way, such that they and their companions have a minimal risk of failure.
What is so wrong about that that it enrages people like you, Pendagast?
I said it's annoying, not enraging.
This type of person, or power gamer, is the person that not only makes the super trick build, but carries on about your yours rots in hades because of this that and the other thing. then wants more of the treasure because his does more. Then carries on about how there isn't enough combat, and why can't he spend 3/4 of the game night running around town trying to buy/build this or that magic item that his 'build' "relies" on. and heaven forbid if someone tells him no.... holy cow.
Again if you want to bounce around the dungeon, like a super ball, being the most effective combat monster you can be fine. Its the attitude that goes along with it, the assumptions that accompany it and the over all lack of "relax" that annoy me. Well and others, which is why the tables Ive played at I have seen the same behaviors/requests denied.
I'd also like to note... it'd be easier to start up a game if the guy(s) could just play and elf fighter... but no, it's too plain, it's not powerful enough....bang and then he's back out of control.
Have you not hit everything you swung at? Have we not won the battles?
The problem is the arms race and the superiority, which then causes power creep, which then makes the game something else, because when something actually stupendous comes along and is meant to stand out.... its more like someone has just ate breakfast.
Like I've said, repeatedly, it's not the multiclassing that bothers me, even the occasional, rational dip.... it's the taking it out of control exploit powergame mentality, that makes it a competition with his character and everyone elses. It's the same person that says "it's in the rules I should be able to buy any magic item I want" but wants to make a paladin/barbarian, because changing alignment suits his predetermined build. Then, he wants to role play and in game reason why he should still be able to smite.... it never stops, the constant angling for more...more more....
That's what annoys me.
Not a rogue 13/shadowdancer 1
So it's a playstyle you don't like. Big deal, I don't like it either. I don't come here to complain about it.
Your issue is with people who don't mesh well with your group. They're not playing the game wrong, they're playing it differently, and that's something you ought to accept. And stop playing with people who don't fit the playstyle of your group; they're not having fun, and you're not having fun.
Edit: Also, I think this misunderstanding is what sparked the entire firestorm in this thread. You hear multiclassing, and you immediately associate it with a very specific kind of person, whose playstyle has nothing to do with choices on how you build a character, and everything to do with attitude.
The last character I played was a Barbarian/Monk/Fighter mix, mechanically- he was multiclassed to hell and back. But that didn't suddenly make me the kind of player you're complaining about.
no... how is it meta gaming if the Dm says, no you cant do that. The DM by nature is meta gaming... almost all the time... Hes the DM.
He could easily say "you can't be a monk"
Or the most famous of all Hickman/Weis "there are no clerics in this world"
I hardly think, that saying you can't change your alignment like socks to gain random character classes for no other reason than to meet your predetermined build plan, is meta gaming. It's a logical enforcement of rules that are in place.
However...if something came up in game, and the Paladin stopped being a paladin and then wanted to advance as a barbarian.... sure. I suppose.
Ive seen some fun paladin/monks.... a decent paladin/cleric...
I even have an Inquisitor/Oracle/Barbarian/Rage Prophet in game. Basically because I wanted to see how the character developed using the Rage Prophet levels to advance the Inquisitor spell list, and use the Anger Inquisition. The PrC states the Rage Prophet is always an oracle (hence the requirement of the curse) but isnt always ONLY an oracle. So by default, that particular character would have to have four classes.
In this particular case, the player knew he was going to build it, so came up with a backstory of WHY. He's not an inquisitor of a god/church, but an ideal.
It's fun, unique, is a mess on paper, has a gaggle of low level spells, but fits his concept of a person who inherited the spirit/ancestry of a great warrior/guardian.
And it required a one level dip of oracle, just to get into Rage Prophet.....
So it's not that every multiclass, PrC or dip is powergaming, it's the powergaming that spawns the wild builds which then cause the race to be/build better, which then causes the "I change my alignment on a whim" to make this build to win the arms race!
Win! I win! when you tell them that they can't suddenly just change their alignment, then thers is the witty rebuttal of "nothing in the rules says I can't"
Sigh..
I dont see the meta gaming/anti meta gaming here.
I'm not really sure what you're ranting about now. Can you condense what point you're trying to make down to a sentence?
As far as I can tell, you're repeating that you don't like people who prefer the game part of the roleplaying game over the roleplaying. What's wrong with that? Can't they play the game how they like? Might not work with your group, or with mine, but it's no reason for you to despise them.
Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with dipping, the topic of this thread.
It seems like the problem being discussed is with how "organic" the transition is. If you suddenly take a paladin level when this is the first time anyone's heard you mention a deity, it doesn't make sense from a story perspective which can irk some people.
If you're planning on an alignment change, and you discuss it with you GM and lay out your motivations for where you want the character to go and why, and you collaboratively work that into the story and the roleplay, I can't see how anyone would object to multiclassing. If you decide "even though I have been a raging barbarian, I'm becoming lawful and taking the rest of my levels in monk so I can be really fast" then expect some rolled eyes.