What classes (or multiclass combinations) work best for "ad-hoc" levelling?

[Steve Geddes]

Our group rarely follows a "build" but rather make ad hoc choices each time we level up. What classes do you think are most amenable to this kind of approach?

[aboniks]

I'd say prepared casters probably have the most options at each level, using your approach, if I understand you correctly.

[Steve Geddes]

Cheers. What I mean is that we don't generally plan ahead when choosing feats/attribute gains and so on. I've certainly found before than at sixth to eighth level, I start running into the problem of wanting to take things I don't have prerequisites for (but could have). Presumably, doing it my way is likely to result in a less effective character all around, but I wondered whether some classes particularly required forethought and if others could be a little more meandering in their evolution.

[Amir Hiram]

Agreed. Clerics have access to all their spells at the get-go, making them a very forgiving (and strong) pick. The same goes for Druids. Wizards will need to choose spells and then buy the rest later, but that's still very forgiving.

I would advise against Fighter in this context because feats are your bread and butter as a Fighter, meaning you need to plan, plan, plan. I'd probably go with a Barbarian or Paladin instead, at least in this context. With Barbarian you'll still need to pick Rage Powers, but that's not so bad. Ranger deserves an honorable mention here, since once you pick a path to go down (Two-Handed Weapon, Two-Weapon, Sword-and-Board, Archery), you've got your choices already limited to useful feats for you when you level. I.E.: The planning is already done for you.

Rogues, while many people don't like them, wouldn't be a bad choice for a game like this. The two things you really need to think about each time you level as a rogue are skill points and Rogue Talents. If you have a vague idea of what sort of character you want to play - a bruiser, a smooth talking scoundrel, a gentleman thief -, then choosing those will be pretty easy. Rogue also benefits from multiclassing a lot, so if you decide you want to play a caster instead, you can get sneak attack damage on your touch attacks; or if you decide you want to be beefier, dipping into Fighter can get you BAB and Bonus Feats to make you that much better of a melee combatant. I'd avoid playing a ranged rogue unless someone helps you get your sneak attacks off.

Finally, consider the sorcerer. While the choices you make won't be very forgiving if you make poor ones, the personality of the sorcerer befits "ad-hoc" more than a wizard. Spontaneous casting has its perks. You can eventually switch out old spells for new ones, too.

[blackbloodtroll]

Have you all considered just using the retraining rules?

Sounds very fitting to your style.

Not sure why everyone levels willingly ignorant of future though.

I even have a hard time with that thematically.

[Axebeard]

Fighters DO get to retrain feats, though, so it's not quite as bad as that.

[Steve Geddes]

Fantastic, thanks (I generally play fighters and thieves and it was a fighter that made me think of this query - I could tell he was poor, and wondered if there was a better choice of class). How about ranger? Does that suffer horrendously without much planning?

[Steve Geddes]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not sure why everyone levels willingly ignorant of future though.

I even have a hard time with that thematically.

As an ex-economist, ex-juggler, ex-acrobat, ex-teacher, ex-stagehand, ex-mathematician, ex-philosopher, ex-bridge player, ex-poker player, ex-bookkeeper and current accountant, the ad hoc approach seems more "realistic" than planning out ones career from the get go.

[aboniks]

Personally I've found that planning ahead in detail, while helpful in some ways, can also end up being a bit of a waste of time.

My current monk/sorcerer/sneaky/crafter/conman character has changed concept so many times due to the way the story is unfolding that my original assumptions about what he "should" be able to do in the future have been overturned multiple times.

And now the DM's have helped me design a homebrew prestige class for an upcoming plot twist. So that's ten levels of blood-soaked spreadsheet erased in one fell swoop.

I'm enjoying the hell out of the process though. :)

[Amir Hiram]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Fantastic, thanks (I generally play fighters and thieves and it was a fighter that made me think of this query - I could tell he was poor, and wondered if there was a better choice of class). How about ranger? Does that suffer horrendously without much planning?

Not really. At least, not in my opinion. As I said in my post, Ranger gets an honorable mention for not needing a lot of planning.

Think of it this way: At levels 1 and 2, you're going to decide how you want to play. Do you like crossbows? Bows? Two weapons? One darned big weapon? Build for that at level 1, and then at level 2 just pick the appropriate Combat Style. Bam! You're set for the future; now, you just pick feats from the list for your Style whenever you get Ranger levels and pick terrains/favored enemies you think fit roleplay-wise or that you think you're going to encounter. It's pretty straightforward.

EDIT: And, personally, one wonderful thing about Rangers is their abilities tend to mesh well with Rogues and Fighters. If you decide to take a level from one of those classes, you'll either get bonus feats (which help you focus on killing more) or sneak attack die (which help you kill more when flanking). It's pretty much a win-win.

[Steve Geddes]

Thanks (not sure how I missed the reference to a ranger the first time through). I think I'll give that a try next time.

[blackbloodtroll]

Steve Geddes wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not sure why everyone levels willingly ignorant of future though.

I even have a hard time with that thematically.

As an ex-economist, ex-juggler, ex-acrobat, ex-teacher, ex-stagehand, ex-mathematician, ex-philosopher, ex-bridge player, ex-poker player, ex-bookkeeper and current accountant, the ad hoc approach seems more "realistic" than planning out ones career from the get go.

Only in regards to your personal experience.

My grandfather has worked construction since he was twelve. When we go camping, he builds a shelter, with a fully functioning kitchen, in less than two hours.

If anything, you have only given more credit to the retraining rules.

[hgsolo]

I actually like fighters for this type of play. If your group is super optimized than you'll want to plan regardless, but if you go for a generalist fighter you can have a little bit of everything. Get a good STR & CON with a even moderate DEX and you can two hand, sword and board, or do some archery. You won't be great at any of it, but you can fight in way more circumstances than the guy who threw every single feat at being the best falchion fighter ever, and you aren't completely screwed when you lose your favorite weapon.

[Steve Geddes]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Not sure why everyone levels willingly ignorant of future though.

I even have a hard time with that thematically.

As an ex-economist, ex-juggler, ex-acrobat, ex-teacher, ex-stagehand, ex-mathematician, ex-philosopher, ex-bridge player, ex-poker player, ex-bookkeeper and current accountant, the ad hoc approach seems more "realistic" than planning out ones career from the get go.

Only in regards to your personal experience.

Yeah, that was kind of my point. I wasn't pretending everyone should do it like that. It just doesn't seem right to me to make choices now based on where I want to end up. I appreciate that's an unusual position though.

[Amir Hiram]

hgsolo wrote:

I actually like fighters for this type of play. If your group is super optimized than you'll want to plan regardless, but if you go for a generalist fighter you can have a little bit of everything. Get a good STR & CON with a even moderate DEX and you can two hand, sword and board, or do some archery. You won't be great at any of it, but you can fight in way more circumstances than the guy who threw every single feat at being the best falchion fighter ever, and you aren't completely screwed when you lose your favorite weapon.

I can see how that would work. I'd personally advocate Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin instead, though. Avoid getting Weapon Focus and similar feats; focus instead on your general area of expertise. You still get solid BAB to use with other weapons, too, including the bow, the falchion, the whatever.

And, of course, Rogue is good for this style of play because Sneak Attack works with pretty much anything, even spells. You just need to be sure you can catch your enemy without his DEX in some fashion if you're using ranged weapons, or you're limited to one attack per round (via Stealth and Sniping).

[blackbloodtroll]

Just look at the retraining rules here.

[Reynard_the_fox]

Remember that if you do go full caster, you SHOULD stay full caster - losing levels of spellcasting will weaken you much more than you think.

Barbarian or Rogue both seem excellent for this - you'll have plenty of Rage Powers/Rogue Talents to pick from (it's nice to get something every level), usually with minimal prerequisites, and both multiclass well with many other classes. Though, keep in mind: it's easy to accidentally build an ineffective Rogue. It's really quite hard to accidentally build an ineffective Barbarian.