Always level dip


Advice

351 to 395 of 395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

firefly the great wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Quote:
everyone keeps saying power gaming is bad behavior.
Have you been reading the thread? Many people have been arguing that "powergaming" is completely fine as long as it's not done at the expense of roleplaying.

The problem is that you're supposedly required to have a roleplaying idea in mind before building your character, otherwise you're an icky powergamer. But, you know, most people don't grab RP ideas out of the ether. They're always inspired by *something*. Maybe it's a character from a book that you want to adapt to the setting. Maybe it's just a trope, or a stock character. That's fine.

But I think it's also valid to build your mechanics first, and then look at what you have -- your race, your class, your abilities -- and decide from there what someone with those abilities would act like, what character types they might fit. What, exactly, do you miss out on doing things that way? Why is that any less RP?

While backstory is nice, as a player and as a GM, we are here to create the frontstory. Concepts can evolve.

A player in our game went from a happy go lucky gnome tinkerer concept to a badass sniper with a demon arm with a pretty dark streak.

Stuff happened along the 20 levels...going literally through hell changes a person...

Where it can be a problem is when you want a dip or a feat, or a prestige class that makes no conceptual sense, because you want some feature of it to get the math in your favor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

I have no objection to modifications if the player is actually going to play the modification. You want to be a paranoid wizard to get the +2, fine. But actually play a paranoid wizard.

Where the issue comes in for me is when they want the numbers but balk at what comes with them.

Well, part of what I was saying is that it's either mechanically viable or it isn't. Roleplaying is not - and should not - a mechanical inhibitor or enabler (it's the biggest issue with the Paladin of old which was widely considered superior to the Fighter but with RP-restrictions, and still to a lesser extent today). If +2 Initiative is fine for one guy, it's fine for another, y'know?

So it doesn't really matter to me what traits people take, because they are going to take traits that enhance their concept, rather than conforming to a concept someone else envisioned. The same +2 Initiative could represent almost anything other than being sluggish in combat (if your concept is being sluggish in combat, then it's probably bad for your concept, but it's not really my place to complain if I don't agree with your representation unless it's actually going to cause problems, which is rare).

At the end of the day, classes, feats, traits, and so forth are merely the LEGO blocks we build characters - people - out of. That's all they are. They don't determine your character, but what your character can do physically in the game.

Ultimately, nothing comes with the numbers. There is only what you give the numbers. For example...

Magic Missile unerringly hits up to 5 targets for 1d4+1 force damage. That's the mechanics. Once it hits the character sheet, the sky is the limit. My necromancer may cast the spell and it appears like 1-5 glowing skulls with gnashing teeth screeching out to hit people, while those of us who played Baldur's Gate might see bright pink orbs scattering around. Those who played Neverwinter Nights might imagine them as streaming blue beams of twisting light (this is how it's portrayed in the art in the CRB as well). However, I might decide that my magic missiles don't look like anything other than an intense ripple through the air, or like a translucent liquid, or is rainbow patterned.

And when it comes to knowing why I have magic missile, there are any number of reasons. That's part of the beauty of it. It gives lots of opportunities for adding fluffy bits. However, fluffy bits are not required, and the fluff in the existing mechanics does well for creating ideas or a springboard for your own concepts; which means they serve a useful purpose all the same. :)

Liberty's Edge

The numbers should reflect what you are trying to make.

If you can't make the numbers reflect what you are trying to make, you can't make it.

I would like to play a character that has all 18s, Full BaB, Both Arcane and Divine Spells...but I play what I can build within the rule set.

If the trait indicates there should be a reason for the ability, if you decide to handwave it you are favoring the math over the RP. Do it enough, and the straw breaks the camels back.

If a player wants to do something, I always ask why. If it is because it fits a concept they want to play, I almost always say yes. If it is because they want "Moar Power!" I ask them "Why does this fit your character concept."

If they can't answer...


magikot wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Khrysaor wrote:

Really?

A level 5 wizard can cast fireball. A wizard4/sorcerer1 cannot. The multiclass has less chance to defeat SR. The multiclass has less spells. The multiclass has less power.

This is not optimal and doesn't maximize the character. It definitely doesn't fit the accepted definition of power gamer.

Defining "power gaming" for a character level 5 wizard/sorcerer as "being able to cast fireball" is not a full picture of the character.

Having a level of sorcerer provides an entire class worth of benefits. Whether those benefits offset losing a level of spellcasting is entirely dependent on what the player is attempting to optimize.

And even if a wizard4/sorcerer1 is somewhat less than a wizard5, a wizard5/sorcerer1 could well be so much better than wizard6 that the player is willing to take a short term hit for a longer term gain.

The definition of power gamer hasn't changed. It's a word that carries a definition based on a player, not the character.

Having one less level of wizard removes a lot too. In this example you're short one feat, 3rd level spells, CL5, the ability required to start making wands or magic arms and armor.

The wizard6 still has more spells at a higher tier, has a better ability to penetrate SR, the higher caster level to make +2 weapons and armor. The power of a straight classed character will forever be out of reach to the class that dipped. You have to sacrifice something in order to dip.

This specific example only applies if said wizard is a Diviner. (I really couldn't find a bloodline that really fit Divination) Also, you aren't short 1 feat as Sorcerer dip gives you Eschew Materials for free. Furthermore, you can take a trait to make your CL +2 with a max CL equal to your HD so a dipped wizard is still CL5. Plus Wiz4/Sor1 has +2 to his will save over a Wiz5 which is like getting Iron Will for free.

A counter example for the Wiz4/Sor1...

Unless you dip 2 levels, that trait is worthless. It specifically says if the bonus brings you above your actual level you gain no bonus. You can't pick to just have a +1. This is designed to stop the 1 level dip power gamers from getting around CL restriction, not people who dip for flavor or actual multiclassing. 2 level dip and you're a full spell level behind.

The dipped wizard gets a bonus to his good saves and loses the bonus to the rest of the saves.

The argument was for a Crossblooded sorc dip that causes you to take a -2 will save that counteracts the +2 from sorc class and is a net of 0.

Many of the abilities from dipping sorc will never get better. They scale with the sorc levels not with your wizards, abyssal for example will only give your summons DR1/good not evil and never get better.

You gain eschew materials in place of the many options that come with the wizard bonus feat.

I was never arguing that you can't dip to be better than a straight class at a single facet. I even stated earlier that this is why people dip. But being better at a single thing and specializing in the single thing makes you worse at many other things. You are sacrificing something to gain levels in another class. A reduced BAB for touch attacks, reduced saves in certain areas, reduced spells per day, reduced caster level for spell variables and penetrating SR, and in general, delaying powers that you should've had a level earlier. Yes in many cases you can wait the level, but that doesn't mean the guy who straight classed is going to be worse when they have the extra level. A 5% chance on SR could be the difference of doing ok damage vs no damage.

You also said you are a power gamer and you could take a sorcerer level with a 7 Cha. This is exactly the things people should look for. This is min/maxing to the fullest as the only part of the class affected by Cha is spells that will become useless. A player that puts the 1 point in for casting first level spells and dips a level may not be a power gamer as they've created reason for the possibility. Small investment to support fluff vs no investment and usually a profit where investment should be to gain more profit.

Like a Synthesist summoner who dumps all physical stats to 7 to pump the others knowing the fused eidolon grants better stats. Min/maxing at its finest.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Indeed, a mechanical discovery could inspire a flavorful concept.

Even then, the sudden failure to be a good roleplayer does not occur.

An overabundant exploitation of rules loopholes and a lack of character depth and roleplaying during sessions is the sign of a powergamer.

Multiclassing has nothing to do with the difference between the styles.

It as blatantly false as saying only criminals wear hoodies or trenchcoats.

Agreed--when I roll characters, I tend to flip through classes, archetypes, races, and sometimes feats, and there get ideas that would be interesting mechanically (not in a min-maxing powergamer way) as well as in flavour. Then, I develop a concept around it. I don't think coming up with an idea from the mechanics make you a powergamer, because some of the ideas I've come up with are far from optimized--like a magus/harrower who fights using cards with the Death Dealer feat.

Doesn't help that, when I DO come up with an idea before looking at mechanics, it all-too-often tends to be something that would be very difficult, if not impossible, to translate into pathfinder rules.


You can have a mechanically suboptimal character and still suck at roleplaying. It's not like with every good feat selection some gremlin of bad RP jumps out and tries to tempt you away from the land of the true and just roleplayers of the world.

Liberty's Edge

Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.


ciretose wrote:

If the trait indicates there should be a reason for the ability, if you decide to handwave it you are favoring the math over the RP. Do it enough, and the straw breaks the camels back.

If a player wants to do something, I always ask why. If it is because it fits a concept they want to play, I almost always say yes. If it is because they want "Moar Power!" I ask them "Why does this fit your character concept."

If they can't answer...

If all the fluff was removed from the books, and all we were left with was the mechanics, you could still play the game just as effectively as before. People will build what they want to build. Either the mechanic is fine or it isn't. And "I want to take this trait because it makes my character more well-rounded/faster/stronger/tougher" is as good a reason as any. Sometimes people don't have a character concept fully fleshed out. I for one have found characters often grow into their own during play, and have found certain characters end up going in an entirely different direction RP/Story-wise than I had initially thought during conceptual development.

Quote:
I would like to play a character that has all 18s, Full BaB, Both Arcane and Divine Spells...but I play what I can build within the rule set.

I wouldn't want to play that character...


ciretose wrote:
Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.

Elaborate?


Khrysaor wrote:
Like a Synthesist summoner who dumps all physical stats to 7 to pump the others knowing the fused eidolon grants better stats. Min/maxing at its finest.

Actually the back-story for that writes itself, being weak, unhealthy and severely clumsy person you sought the aid of an outsider to help deal with your many weaknesses, so your eidolon is your Captain America Super Serum. If you want to go for the classic you could go with the sickly youth dying of fever making a deal with a beast of the outside to live. Basically having low physical stats (being weak) would make you more likely to want to be a synthesists and therefor seems a perfectly reasonable summoner back story.


You can write backstory to fit anything. That doesn't change it from being min/maxing. If you are weak, clumsy, and unhealthy, why would you be very charismatic, intelligent, and wise? Nothing says because the first three are weak you should be a genius in the others. You could just as likely have 7s in everything.


Khrysaor wrote:
You can write backstory to fit anything. That doesn't change it from being min/maxing. If you are weak, clumsy, and unhealthy, why would you be very charismatic, intelligent, and wise? Nothing says because the first three are weak you should be a genius in the others. You could just as likely have 7s in everything.

There's not really a why to it, except in metagame terms. Reality is a horribly imbalanced game. You're smart and charismatic because you're smart and charismatic. Is there a reason why being weak and clumsy would prevent you from being smart and charismatic? Not that I can see. So who cares? Is anything short of having a 10 in every stat going to be "not powergaming"?


Khrysaor wrote:
You can write backstory to fit anything. That doesn't change it from being min/maxing. If you are weak, clumsy, and unhealthy, why would you be very charismatic, intelligent, and wise? Nothing says because the first three are weak you should be a genius in the others. You could just as likely have 7s in everything.

Narrative Balance mostly those who are awful in one area in fiction are good in others, take captain america again pre-super serum he was weak and clumsier than his fellows but he was more loyal,intelligent and charismatic.

Assistant Software Developer

I removed some posts. Play nice.

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:
Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.

I've never had anyone do this in any of the dozen+ games of Pathfinder I've played in, nor in the game I DM'd. Where exactly are you pulling these people from, or are you, and others, complaining about people who aren't at your table/in your games?

"People are wrong on the internet" is not a valid excuse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.

That is fine unless the DM try to force the player to play the concept he things macthes the numbers.

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.
That is fine unless the DM try to force the player to play the concept he things macthes the numbers.

If you have a 7 charisma, no you can't be the Dos Equis guy.

If you have a 7 Wisdom, people don't come to you seeking sage wisdom.

If you have a 7 Intelligence, you are not seen as an intellectual giant.

If you take the Childlike feat, you will appear childlike.

If you were raised by Orcs, you should probably will have some orc style behaviors.

If you picked a prestige class that has a lot of fluff, play the fluff or don't take the class. No you aren't the sweetest most loving Red Wizard in the whole gosh darn world.

Etc, etc, etc...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Nicos wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Coming up with a concept around the numbers is fine by me. What bothers me is lack of willingness to play a concept that matches the numbers you picked.
That is fine unless the DM try to force the player to play the concept he things macthes the numbers.

If you have a 7 charisma, no you can't be the Dos Equis guy.

If you have a 7 Wisdom, people don't come to you seeking sage wisdom.

If you have a 7 Intelligence, you are not seen as an intellectual giant.

If you take the Childlike feat, you will appear childlike.

If you were raised by Orcs, you should probably will have some orc style behaviors.

If you picked a prestige class that has a lot of fluff, play the fluff or don't take the class. No you aren't the sweetest most loving Red Wizard in the whole gosh darn world.

Etc, etc, etc...

Your examples are mostly fine, I am not acusing you of doing someting wrong I am just telling that your method should be usded with caution.

fore example

Player: the mosnter "X" is to resistent I move and attack monster "Y" cause he seems less armored
DM: You do not, you have 7 int you hae to do something stupid.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't advocate that.

I would advocate a few more "Are you sure?" comments to players with high intelligence and wisdom who are doing something dumb, and a few more smiles from barmaids for players with high charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

If you have a 7 Wisdom, people don't come to you seeking sage wisdom.

If you have a 7 Intelligence, you are not seen as an intellectual giant.

Why not? You certainly won't have actual sage wisdom or be an intellectual giant, but that doesn't mean other people can't see you as one - some sort of grifter who isn't actually very wise but bluffs their way into being seen as the local wise man, giving advice that merely appears profound and relying on cold reading, sounds like a pretty cool character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
ciretose wrote:

If you have a 7 Wisdom, people don't come to you seeking sage wisdom.

If you have a 7 Intelligence, you are not seen as an intellectual giant.

Why not? You certainly won't have actual sage wisdom or be an intellectual giant, but that doesn't mean other people can't see you as one - some sort of grifter who isn't actually very wise but bluffs their way into being seen as the local wise man, giving advice that merely appears profound and relying on cold reading, sounds like a pretty cool character.

As long as you have something else to back it up that's perfectly viable.

For example, if you have a 16+ charisma and a can take 10 and get a 20+DC on Bluff or Diplomacy or Perform (Acting), then you have put down something on your character to justify that you can pass yourself off as a great intellect or a wise sage despite having a 7 int and 7 wis. However, if you have a 10 Charisma to go with those other two 7's and spent your 1 skill point per level on Perception so you don't get ambushed, then no, you are not going to fool anyone into thinking you're a sage or brain surgeon. If you can even pronounce those two words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno if "lack of roleplaying" has anything to do with 'powergaming'

"Back in the Day" NO one could role play, everyone sucked at it. I can't recall a single person that didn't have a dorky voice for their "character" or only did stuff that they themselves would normally do. But it was always fun, and never adversarial.

REAL Roleplaying (IMO) is still pretty rare at tables but not nearly as bad as it was in the 70s and 80s, and bak then "power gaming" wasn't really a thing, the rules were so bland and vanilla, the only way you could "power game" is if the DM lavished you with tons of ridiculous treasure, or, you blatantly cheated.

Grand Lodge

I suppose I am just annoyed by the guy with a blank look on his face, speaks in monotone voice, and only speaks to declare his actions.

You know, only expressing positive emotions when he says "I deal X damage", and mocks anyone whose numbers are not on par with his own, and complains to the DM whenever he disagrees with anything the player does.


So ummm everyone I ever played with in college or the military (and half my high school and grade school payers/buddies....) got it.

Grand Lodge

I have a Navy buddy who spends a ton of time on a sub, and he runs a Pathfinder game.

Those guys are some heavy roleplayers, and yet many prefer mechanically sound PCs, and multiclass just for the sake of new concepts.


I used to play with a Living Greyhawk group who were so good at power gaming they got bored with it. As a result they started to pick quite flawed character concepts (gnome paladins (3 in one party), halfling barbarians etc) as a challenge to see what they could achieve with them.

In terms of the original topic. Some classes are difficult to improve by dipping unless the dip is into a prestige class designed for the bas class. Other concepts (gish, mystic theurge etc) require multiclassing to work at all.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Late, but felt like putting in my 2 cents, with regards to the OP:

Quote:


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?

I don't know what threads you are reading, but as noted, single class characters are often stronger, and there are many class abilities that grow stronger with leveling in that class, so multiclassing can reduce your overall potential quite a lot if you are not careful. That is more of a reason to stick with one class than the capstone.

In build threads, recommendations for dips are more often to round out a concept (get extra class skills, get a useful ability) than to be powergamey. (I dip all the time, and my characters are not very optimized.)

The only "cheesy" dip I ever saw was one I allowed, in a 20th level level one-shot I ran. I had a cleric player who used little armor and wanted to boost her AC, so she dipped into 1 level of monk for the Wisdom bonus to AC and the extra feats. It was only cheesy because the cleric's Wisdom was so high, and given how high the power level of the game was anyway, it didn't really matter (obviously he was playing a low armored cleric so clearly was not optimizing in other ways).

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
ciretose wrote:

If you have a 7 Wisdom, people don't come to you seeking sage wisdom.

If you have a 7 Intelligence, you are not seen as an intellectual giant.

Why not? You certainly won't have actual sage wisdom or be an intellectual giant, but that doesn't mean other people can't see you as one - some sort of grifter who isn't actually very wise but bluffs their way into being seen as the local wise man, giving advice that merely appears profound and relying on cold reading, sounds like a pretty cool character.

As long as you have something else to back it up that's perfectly viable.

For example, if you have a 16+ charisma and a can take 10 and get a 20+DC on Bluff or Diplomacy or Perform (Acting), then you have put down something on your character to justify that you can pass yourself off as a great intellect or a wise sage despite having a 7 int and 7 wis. However, if you have a 10 Charisma to go with those other two 7's and spent your 1 skill point per level on Perception so you don't get ambushed, then no, you are not going to fool anyone into thinking you're a sage or brain surgeon. If you can even pronounce those two words.

But of course, you will still actually not be wise or smart.

You will be pretending.


DeathQuaker wrote:
I don't know what threads you are reading, but as noted, single class characters are often stronger, and there are many class abilities that grow stronger with leveling in that class, so multiclassing can reduce your overall potential quite a lot if you are not careful. That is more of a reason to stick with one class than the capstone.

I could be completely off on this (I certainly don't think I've tried enough combinations personally to know), but my best reasoning for wanting dips is to get something nice for your character early on. Yes, if you take 1 level away from fighter, you'll never get the capstone and you'll be behind on all of the class features by one level. If it picks you up Barbarian rage however, you're getting a pretty cool class feature right then and there, and have a lot of levels ahead to play with it.

Like I said, just kind of a guess on my part though. It would just make the most sense to me as a good reason to dip.


I do not have any problem allowing multiclass characters in my group, but I also do not pull punches when they are matched up against a single-class NPC who obviously outclasses them either.

But, in my experience, Rogues are an amazing class, Monks do not need a rebuild, PC's do not need 18's in primary stats to be viable, and multiclass characters of equal level to single classed ones fail at fulfilling their role in the party (with the exception of the fighter/barb's role of "hit things hard").

I have noticed that in a group of four or less players, if one of them dips a level it may help that one character, but only at the expense of the entire party's group dynamic.

In a party of five or more, the impact on group dynamics is somewhat mitigated by the increased diversity of the group beyond the basic arcane/divine/skirmisher/clubber dynamic.

So, sure, multiclassing creates strong characters...and weak parties.


Just chiming in, our group doesn't allow multi-classing at all. We played a lot of 3.5, and while this system doesn't allow for as much broken stuff as that one, the purpose behind all the multi-classing seems the same. People tend to multiclass for mechanical advantages, and it's difficult to justify it any other way. This game is extremely versatile. For any character concept, you can find a class + archetype + trait + feat combination to allow it. Overpowered characters that one shot bbegs or cleave through enemies that should take rounds to get through hurt the fun of the entire group. It isn't a competition or an elder scrolls game. It's a cooperative roleplaying game where the story, character growth and character interaction are the goals. You don't win dnd, at least not at our table.

Grand Lodge

FightslikeaHomid wrote:
Just chiming in, our group doesn't allow multi-classing at all. We played a lot of 3.5, and while this system doesn't allow for as much broken stuff as that one, the purpose behind all the multi-classing seems the same. People tend to multiclass for mechanical advantages, and it's difficult to justify it any other way. This game is extremely versatile. For any character concept, you can find a class + archetype + trait + feat combination to allow it. Overpowered characters that one shot bbegs or cleave through enemies that should take rounds to get through hurt the fun of the entire group. It isn't a competition or an elder scrolls game. It's a cooperative roleplaying game where the story, character growth and character interaction are the goals. You don't win dnd, at least not at our table.

Umm what does removal of the MC system have to do with this?!? Seriously...this is an issue of difference of system mastery level and not MCing. You can make a fighter or rogue that will one shot the BBEG is there is a big enough difference of system mastery. The whole idea that MCing causes power gaming or game breaking builds is a fallacy. There are plenty of single classes builds that are perfectly broken (wizard 20, I'm looking at you).


Just because something is done for mechanical reasons does not mean it isn't in line with a character or that it's power gaming.

Say we start at 5th level and I want a veteran mercenary fighter that's done a lot of dirty work during her days, isn't particularly intelligent but been through a lot and learnt a lot of tricks along the road.

Dipping rogue to get a bunch of class skills, some extra skill points and some sneak attack (starting out as fighter 4/rogue 1 and just adding fighter after that) is doing it for mechanical advantage - I couldn't get decent skills with a fighter 5 unless heavily boosting intelligence or making similar sacrifices.

It's the most effective way to create my character - thus, I make it for mechanical reasons, just like most melee characters take power attack for mechanical reasons.

That does not mean that is a "munchkin" or "power gamer" character.

Repeat after me: Doing something for mechanical reasons _is fine_. Otherwise there's no reason to have mechanics.

Now, doing something that's not in line with the character or game world to try to be far more powerful than other characters, for example, that is power gaming (and sometimes munchkinism).

But doing something for mechanical reasons isn't an issue at all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Khrysaor wrote:
Or maybe you should not make those misrepresentations you think others make of you.

Point taken.


KenderKin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
said stuff

No. It means they have to not be a dick or not play with people who are dicks. One of the two.

No dick who wants to label them is going to care if they can.

So what I am getting is that someone sees a character sheet and determines that this character is optimized and therfore this guy/gal is a dick, so I should be a dick to him/her first in order to quell and calm their predetermined dickyness.

Just trying to help! ;)

I stand by my first analysis of the situation......


FightslikeaHomid wrote:
Just chiming in, our group doesn't allow multi-classing at all. We played a lot of 3.5, and while this system doesn't allow for as much broken stuff as that one, the purpose behind all the multi-classing seems the same. People tend to multiclass for mechanical advantages, and it's difficult to justify it any other way. This game is extremely versatile. For any character concept, you can find a class + archetype + trait + feat combination to allow it. Overpowered characters that one shot bbegs or cleave through enemies that should take rounds to get through hurt the fun of the entire group. It isn't a competition or an elder scrolls game. It's a cooperative roleplaying game where the story, character growth and character interaction are the goals. You don't win dnd, at least not at our table.

That's not an issue with multiclassing, overpowered characters are just overpowered characters. In fact, the most overpowered characters tend to be hurt more than helped by multiclassing.

I take it that you haven't seen a well played Sorcerer 20, or Wizard 20, or Cleric 20, or Oracle 20, or Witch 20; and in terms of raw damage, Paladin 20.


Elosandi wrote:
I take it that you haven't seen a well played Sorcerer 20, or Wizard 20, or Cleric 20, or Oracle 20, or Witch 20; and in terms of raw damage, Paladin 20.

Many campaigns (including all published paizo AP's to this date) don't go anywhere close to 20. If you find that multiclassed characters outperform single-classed characters at say, level 4-10, that might be enough reason to ban them.

That said, I haven't seen that happen. Just saying that comparing something to Wizard 20 is kind of irrelevant when few games go that far.


Ilja wrote:
Elosandi wrote:
I take it that you haven't seen a well played Sorcerer 20, or Wizard 20, or Cleric 20, or Oracle 20, or Witch 20; and in terms of raw damage, Paladin 20.

Many campaigns (including all published paizo AP's to this date) don't go anywhere close to 20. If you find that multiclassed characters outperform single-classed characters at say, level 4-10, that might be enough reason to ban them.

That said, I haven't seen that happen. Just saying that comparing something to Wizard 20 is kind of irrelevant when few games go that far.

20 was just an example. The same classes are generally more powerful single classed at lower levels too.

For instance, the wizard or witch

Level 1/2: Sleep ends level appropriate encounters (Witch adds in slumber hex for stranglers).

Level 3/4: Glitterdust, Colour Spray and Web all shine. For single targets there's blindness/deafness if you feel they have both high fortitude and will.

Level 5/6: Deep Slumber. See Level 1/2. Add Stinking Cloud if targetting fortitude.

Level 7/8: Confusion and Web Cloud rear their heads

Level 9/10: One shot the BBEG? I'd rather just turn them into a mouse for the rest of their life and keep them in a cage to taunt.

At this level save or lose spells become serious. Dominate person, Feeblemind, Baleful Polymorph, Suffocation.

And this is during the first 10 levels, the point where spellcasters are considered to be at their weakest, and not even factoring in the huge degree of utility and defensive options they bring even at this level, with spells like mount, fly, spider climb, levitate, mage hand, detect magic, wind wall, fickle winds, wall of ice, wall of force, wall of iron, fabricate, make whole, mending, unseen servant, telekinesis, paragon surge, Gust of Wind, Overland Flight, Invisibility, Greater Invisibility, just off the top of my head.

Grand Lodge

Who would ban multiclassing?

That's needless, useless, and accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than restrict concepts.

Such a thing would have no impact on powergaming, and do nothing for flavor.

It is as effective as banning Female PCs, or banning miniatures with the color red on them.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Who would ban multiclassing?

That's needless, useless, and accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than restrict concepts.

Such a thing would have no impact on powergaming, and do nothing for flavor.

It is as effective as banning Female PCs, or banning miniatures with the color red on them.

But da red wunz go fasta!

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwolf117 wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I don't know what threads you are reading, but as noted, single class characters are often stronger, and there are many class abilities that grow stronger with leveling in that class, so multiclassing can reduce your overall potential quite a lot if you are not careful. That is more of a reason to stick with one class than the capstone.

I could be completely off on this (I certainly don't think I've tried enough combinations personally to know), but my best reasoning for wanting dips is to get something nice for your character early on. Yes, if you take 1 level away from fighter, you'll never get the capstone and you'll be behind on all of the class features by one level. If it picks you up Barbarian rage however, you're getting a pretty cool class feature right then and there, and have a lot of levels ahead to play with it.

Like I said, just kind of a guess on my part though. It would just make the most sense to me as a good reason to dip.

Yes, people usually dip because there's something they want. Why else would you do it? :)

But as another poster notes, that isn't necessarily an issue of power gaming or brokenness. A dip into barbarian nets you a few rounds of rage, some extra class skills, maybe an extra hit point. Nice. The fighter gets fast movement, but he has to opt out of wearing heavy armor if he wants it. You acknowledge being behind a level on other abilities--that can actually hurt more than you think, especially if you're in a slow level campaign. It hurts an archetype fighter worse as their abilities that replace certain fighter abilities can be more essential to a concept, and sometimes waiting several thousand XP longer for them aren't always worth it. And those few rounds of rage are going to last one, two, MAYBE 3 combats, at the notable cost of being fatigued afterward (the barbarian doesn't get the ability to ignore that till much later), and fatigue's hard to cure (easier than it used to be before splats). The fighter will get diminishing returns on them on those "lot of levels ahead" when fights tend to last longer. It's at best a minor buff. It also makes him susceptible to failing Will saves, something fighters aren't otherwise known to be good at, and unlike actual barbarians, will not have the option of rage powers that make him immune to certain effects.

It does benefit the PC, sure, but not in a way that is unusual or unaccountable for. If the fighter encounters a full barbarian that has rage powers and dozens more rounds of rage, he's going to see how limited his ability is.

It's not a bad idea for a one level dip. You can get a good fighter build out of that. But there's nothing broken or unsavory about doing it.


"[Do you] Always level dip?"

I don't always level dip (haven't yet in PF), but I when I do it won't be for flavor. It will be for some mechanical purpose that helps my character perform whatever fucntion at a higher level.

/ a Rogue multi-classing into a level Fighter is utterly transparent in game


@ DQ: Oh, I know. I was simply thinking about the time it takes to get stuff for some classes. Going back to the barbarian dip on a fighter (bear with me, cuz I rarely play fighters but...), I would say the most useful ability, barring the bonus feats that are just placed throughout the class, is probably weapon training, with the capstone at 20 being pretty kickass.

With that in mind though, it takes level 5 to get the first iteration of weapon training and four levels before any upgrade to it, along with 20 full levels for the weapon mastery. It's a pretty long way to go before getting the coolest stuff, while one level into barb early on gets a couple neat things to work with for the rest of the character's career (as you pointed out, it obviously has restrictions too though).

As far as powergaming goes, I definitely don't think multiclassing always implies as much. It can, yes, but more often than not, I see it as a way to get the kind of concept/build you want. Either way, if players are going to optimize, they can do it with multiclassing or without.


One interesting dip I've seen though was actually to get a class level late.

The until then single classed Cavalier dipped into fighter for one level so that she'd be able to take "Coordinated Charge" as her "Greater Tactician" feat.

351 to 395 of 395 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Always level dip All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.