Weird as it sounds to some, but every "powergamer" I have ever played with, stuck with their class.
Not true in 3.5 though.
Yeah, I made a similar point BBT, I saw a lot of level dipping in 3.5, and every case I recall was done for power gaming purposes. But even with the same players, I've yet to see a single level dip in Pathfinder. Now we're only on our third Pathfinder campaign, but we've gone through at least fifteen characters so far.
It makes me think that level dipping is more difficult and our power gamers just aren't yet that comfortable with Pathfinder, or else PF power gaming really does favor single classes.
While I don't think I'm as bothered by such things as some on these boards, I will admit that I have been known to roll my eyes at certain builds.
But even so, the power gamers I have played with might do all they can to exploit certain power builds, but they weren't "jerk players" and I enjoyed playing with them. And as others have noted, some of the most overt power gamers were also our best "role players" as well. For certain definitions of "role player." In general I would say that they played their character concepts very well, but they were a little sketchy in backstory and justification for their crazy class combinations and alignment shifts.
Which never was a problem at our tables. It just raised a few eyebrows from time to time.
Please do.
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.
Outside of PFS, Paladins don't need a deity.
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.
Considering that barbarians lose the ability to rage if they become lawful, I can only ever seen choosing to become Lawful after being a barbarian as a roleplay decision, not an optimization decision.
(And if for some reason you want to combine monk fast movement with barbarian fast movement, you could just be a martial artist and not become lawful.)
I think there needs to be a balance. Fewer players focusing so much on having the Highest Numbers and a little more on having the character follow a basic concept and focus on that.
Please do.Here is one such experience.
Oh dear that thread...
I know it is just a hilarious situation.
I have players like that... They hate me...
|
Well, I provide the books, the minis, the craft beers, the donuts, and print-outs of the latest FAQs and Errata.
I also provide quick-reference sheets specific to classes and offer my services to draw character pics.
I guess I really only make troublesome players unhappy, by trying to make everyone happy.
Can't please everyone.
Yowza...
I really need to practice Drawing more...
Bellevue, WA.
Seriously? I'm up near Kirkland.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot believe that some people complain about dipping from a point of realism and story telling. The very moment you get a class and level system, realism and story telling has been excluded from the system itself, relegated to non-rule areas of the game.
There is nothing which justifies why there are a handful of more or less rigidly defined developmental paths, geared towards a linear progression, with certain features only available to those stuck with it long enough, even if, by all accounts it has not all that much to do with other features of the development package. Do I need to have a favored enemy to get Hide In Plain Sight? Heavy Armor Proficiency to inspire people with my Banner?
It's a rules abstraction, there because the game is a game, a rule based interaction with the goal of being fun and enjoyable and not a simulation. If it was, what exactly would it be a simulation of anyway?
And if the rules say I can dip crossblooded sorcerer to get +2 damage per die on all my damage spells, then that's what I can do, if I play that game. I don't need to make up any narrative explanation for it, my character would certainly never think of himself as a sorcerer/wizard multiclass, but maybe understand that he improved his innate magical talents by hard work and study and that there is something in him, that empowers his burning hands beyond what his co-students at Wizard U could do. But mainly he will think of himself as a Wizard.
There might be an issue with the rules, that such a thing is possible, but it is not an issue to employ it in character creation, once it has been agreed upon that it is a legal option. And if it turns out to be problematic while actually playing the game, there is nothing wrong with house ruling it. It's your game, you're supposed to enjoy it.
But to claim that, in effect, using dip options that gimp your character is fine and using ones that empower him is not I find problematic. Power gaming is not a weird fetish of evil men, but a simple result of the fact that some choices make it more probable and others less probable to succeed in the game's mechanics of conflict resolution. Live with it or improved the rules, but do not blame people simply because they chose to look left and right before crossing the street while you are a fan of running blindly with scissors.
I think there needs to be a balance. Fewer players focusing so much on having the Highest Numbers and a little more on having the character follow a basic concept and focus on that.Dips usually aren't about having the highest numbers. They're about having the mechanics earlier or at all. So you can play your intended concept for more of the game rather than having to wait until you can make some inflated prerequisites. Or to salvage a nearly hopeless concept (like a ranger dip to get power attack on a dex based two handed weapon build that is otherwise better suited by a non-ranger)
A style monk dip is the difference between having kirin style put together at level 8 instead of level 12.
A fighter dip can mean having something like whip mastery at level 3 (or even 2 if you dip two levels) instead of level 7 on, say, a magus. Or having dazzling display at level 1 instead of level 5 on a bard or inquisitor.
A barbarian dip is the difference between raging and just being in a tiff.
I get that and that is the kind I support. But I have seen a lot of builds where the Dips were simply to help get Higher Numbers not for any flavor.
I hate people who dip to get higher numbers. They should just take all their levels in fighter, whose class features are- wait.
But do you actually have it fit flavor?
OR do you just take them just for the Numbers.
But do you actually have it fit flavor?
OR do you just take them just for the Numbers.
Care to give examples of these unflavorful dips?
For example, what sort of personality does my ranger need to have for her to be allowed to dip fighter?
|
Multiclassing happens in the real world too; why not in RPGs?
Consider two martial artists, who both start out practicing kung fu. One of them prefers to master pure kung fu, the other one has heard good things about the grappling techniques of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, so he devotes dome time to learning about that. He's not going to get as far with kung fu as the purist, but he'll have more flexibility.
Now let's compare this to three paladins. One says that pure holy fighting is all he needs, everything else is a distraction. One of them thinks there's value in pure fighting technique, without doctrine, and takes some fighter levels to get Armor Training and Weapon Specialization. And the third one is worried about evil sorcerers spamming fireballs, so he studies athletic fighting, learning some levels in Monk to get Evasion.
Looking at multiclassing as "taking a Minor in ..." is a way of visualizing IC what happens. People consider the job they want to do, and consider different training paths, wondering which combination of classes/degrees is most suitable. Sometimes pure specialization is best, but there can also be value in cross-training diverse skill sets, like a physicist taking classes in bussiness administration because he's interested in the economic side of how new technology functions in society.
A Wizard who's sent to serve a jail sentence might happen to pick up a level of Rogue inside. Conversely, a convicted felon might find religion and take Cleric levels.
---
Concluding: there's no fundamental contradiction between RP and multiclassing, even power-hungry multiclassing, if you can come up with a plausible story why your character wants to cross-train.
Wow, I am a dirty, dirty player. pretty much every character I play has a dip or two, or full multiclassing. I almost never play a straight character, even if we intend to play to 20. I mean, let's see...
Cleric 4, Fighter 1 - Would probably have done more if the campaign hadn't ended.
Oracle 7, Rogue 2 - Well, someone needed to pick those damned locks.
Fighter 13, Barbarian 2 for the Carrion Crown we just played. I took two levels in Titan Mauler rather than use the 3.5 feat Monkey Grip so I could use a greatsword and shield.
Ranger, Warshaper 4, Synthesist 12 - a Kitsune shapeshifter I intend to play soon.
Oracle 4, Sorcerer 4, Mystic Theurge 12 - Another kitsune, this one a Enhcntment and support specialist.
Of course, my next character is a Kitsune (yes, there is actually a backstory between the three my GM's are in on) Magister. He's in the Way of the Wicked, so should he last that long, he'll have twenty level of Magister (a Super Genius class). Of course, I'm also plundering the Super Genius Guide to Feats of Multiclassing...
The argument that powergaming is perfectly fine because game mechanics of some sort exist at all is very similar to the argument that "anything is possible because dragons."
Game mechanics exist because you don't have a game without mechanics.
The reason people complain about power gaming is because they believe certain players exploit the rules to gain an advantage that may not violate the explicit rules, but they feel violate the "spirit" of the game. Of course that's entirely a subjective judgment. One person's "exploit" is another person's "flavor".
I've been accused of being a "power gamer" on occasion. I can certainly build powerful characters when I want to, and even when I have a concept that is not based on overwhelming power, I still do my best to choose the best options that fit the concept so that the character is a solid contributor in combat or out. I certainly don't intentionally "gimp" my characters any more than the concept itself might restrain them.
When I roll my eyes at "power gamers" it is usually when I believe that the concept the gamer is developing is one that is pursuing some mechanical edge from what seems, to me, to be a pure metagaming perspective.
I used the example of level dipping into monk to boost saves. That is a character concept that focuses on an element of the game that the character is not really supposed to even be aware of. How is the character in question supposed to "know" that taking a level of monk will make them better at avoiding game mechanic effects? Similarly, how does a character "know" that taking a level of fighter grants them access to an entire category of special feats?
Now, it could be argued that the desired character concept FORCES the power gamer to metagame since the game mechanics restrict options unless certain choices are made. If the concept the player is desiring to create were not constrained by the class mechanic, then level dipping would not be an issue. Why should a player be restrained from pursuing a goal just because the class system forces them to pick up a level of a particular class?
In the end I think this whole argument boils down to how players deal with the limitations of the class system itself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Level Dipping =/= Role Playing
Level Dipping =/= Power Gaming
Level Dipping =/= Character, or Fluff, or Exploit, or Flavor
Level Dipping = Player's Choice
Why do so many people think they know what's best for everyone at the table?
I level dip... sometimes. Or, I don't. Am I doing it wrong?
A fighter knows he's better than the rogue at fortitude saves. The rogue knows he's better than the fighter at reflex saves, the wizard knows he's better than both of the others at will saves. I'd imagine every class is aware of what other classes are capable of. Why wouldn't they recognize a monk, atuned of mind and body, would have resistance to all things? The rigorous training of a monk is what gives these resistances, and taking a level in a class assumes you've been training towards those ends.
I simply disagree with this entirely. Fighters, rogues and wizards don't even know that saving throws exist. Not as I have always understood the game to be played. Saving throws are pure metagaming artifacts.
|
|
A fighter knows he's better than the rogue at fortitude saves. The rogue knows he's better than the fighter at reflex saves, the wizard knows he's better than both of the others at will saves.
Unless the fighter has a poor Con and high Dex. A dwarf rogue could easily be tougher Fort wise than a human fighter.
Not that my personal opinion is all that important, but here is what I am OK with.
Characters who have focused on melee combat are aware that they are better at melee combat because they have observed that they do better in melee than their peers.
Characters who are very agile and not weighed down with heavy armor know that they are generally less subject to being hurt by things that they can dodge.
The will save thing is more problematical, but there are indications in game that some individuals have more mental resilience than others, and those might believe that they are more able to withstand certain magical or other mind-based effects than others.
None of these are really based on "class" in my opinion. Class itself is a metagame artifact as far as I'm concerned, although observation of behavior and capabilities would tend to end up with words to describe different individuals' abilities. It is quite possible that to the general public "wizard" is a word that perfectly well describes a range of "classes" that might range from "witch" to "sorcerer".
From a role playing perspective I can accept that "martial training" would lead a character to expect to become better at combat, "martial arts training" would lead a character to expect to become more nimble and certain mental discipline training would lead a character to expect to become more mentally resilient.
A fighter knows he's better than the rogue at fortitude saves. The rogue knows he's better than the fighter at reflex saves, the wizard knows he's better than both of the others at will saves.Unless the fighter has a poor Con and high Dex. A dwarf rogue could easily be tougher Fort wise than a human fighter.Just like any other specific example you want to think up can be made to fit this. I'm merely arguing class devoid of race, stats, items, or any other variable. Adding more variables only helps to convolute the argument.
A dwarf rogue will have less fort than a dwarf fighter.
This is also too much of a generalization. It assumes that fighters will pump up constitution and rogues won't. I've had rogues with high constitution and fighters with average constitution.
Let's take it further Trikk. Humans don't know they're human and elves don't know they're elves and dwarves don't know they're dwarves and the list goes on. They're all the same sentient race on the planet that has been affected by their various environments.
All the races come with distinct variation that provides benefit that separates them from each other much like all the classes do the same.
Fighters don't rage and go crazy in combat. Wizards don't have bloodlines or gain the use of spells without learning them through study and research.
This certainly takes if "further." To argue that a human doesn't know they are human in response to a discussion about metagaming artifacts like "class" is really not worth a response.
"Fighters don't rage and go crazy in combat." Funny, mine sometimes do. I had a ranger who would go into berserk rages. He didn't gain any mechanical advantage from it, but he THOUGHT he did. He had anger issues.
I would expect wizards to know that some arcane magic users gain spell use through study while others do not. They might call such people "wild mages". But while wizards and sorcerers might understand the distinction between their abilities and associate accordingly, why would a gnome farmer care about that distinction?
Bloodlines would seem to be a deeply personal thing, and there are enough similar mechanics that other classes have that such things probably would just be considered to be strange, unexplainable phenomena. Is a wizard bloodline so different from a witch's patron that everyone would automatically see the distinction? I don't think so.
If you view the game through the lens of the game mechanics, all this stuff seems pretty obvious. But if you view it from the perspective of characters who actually grew up in and live in a world full of magic, unexplainable phenomena, strange monsters and limited literacy, well, then it all just becomes a sort of mishmash of superstition, rumor legend and myth.
|
|
Just like any other specific example you want to think up can be made to fit this. I'm merely arguing class devoid of race, stats, items, or any other variable. Adding more variables only helps to convolute the argument.
A dwarf rogue will have less fort than a dwarf fighter.
And neither will be able to tell you who is tougher based on their class. They'll only be able to tell based on their careers, and it will be "he's a right tough bastard" not "he's a right tough bastard because he's a Fighter". Unless they are using the word in its normal use, not as a class title. And "he's a right tough fighter' could easily be said of the rogue.
Every character is a specific example, making generalizations about class meaningless. The characters cannot see such minute differences in metagame stats.
You say you argue classes, but the class bonus is a small part of the many factors that go into it at any level.
"Hey guy, I keep getting dominated by wizards in combat. I wish there was something I could buy to give me protection against magic.""Well how about using this cloak of resistance. It'll grant you more resistance to those powers."
The players do not know what a saving throw is but they know there are items, and that some people, through their specific class training, have better resistances to certain things.
This is one of the areas where even the game designers disagree with how the world exactly works.
Yes, there would be some evidence available to highly discerning individuals that certain professions, training or activities might affect how people react to the world. However, just as in our world, there would be a lot of contradictory evidence too.
"Hey, if you train with those bald folks and learn their meditation techniques you'll be able to resist being enchanted better!"
"Yeah, that's what I thought until I saw that robed dude totally dominated by that skinny finger-wiggler last week."
In general a cloak of resistance would probably be viewed as some sort of "good luck charm". How powerful the magic aura was would provide some indication of how much better it might be than another similar cloak. People are superstitious enough in this world to carry four leaf clovers and rabbits' feet just on the hope that they might give them a bit of luck, so something as powerful as a cloak would definitely be sought after by many people, just on the hope that it might help. But there is also no reason that a character wouldn't scoff at the notion because they knew of a friend who had a powerful cloak who was still polymorphed into a frog. "Sure, if you want to waste your gold on that silly superstition, go ahead, I'm buying a flaming sword myself."