So I noticed level dipping for first level class features is kind of popular. One i've been guilty of doing myself is 1 dip into barbarian for rage and then move on to another martial. Pathfinder discourages it a bit more then 3.5 with the capstones but most games don't go that high so its hardly a real dissuasion.
This seems less common with casters unless your doing something weird you generally would just like to have another level of the same caster. 3rd level wizard spell or get 1st level cleric spell and then slow down your spell progression kind of a no duh.
But barb and some other classes look like they are ripe for the dip.
If they were redone or a PF2 came out do you think the game would be improved by making these dippable classes less dippy.
Or do you feel it doesn't matter and there is nothing wrong with dipping.
so would you say reduce the 1st level rage bonus form +4 to maybe just +2 I would find it harder to justify dipping into another class just for a +1/+1 and then move it up to +4 within the next 2 levels. 3 level dip for +4 str +4 con and +2 will is less desirable but not entirely not worth it.
On the flip side giving the classes to few features at 1st level might make them not feel like that class any more starting out. i guess you could look at that like the transition form farmer to adventurer however.
I like dipping. Some of my favorite games (DtD, 40k) treat character building more like interlocking pieces than pre-defined class tracks. That way players can still follow guidelines if they don't feel like doing anything unusual, but the options are there if they're trying to work on a concept that isn't supported by a pre-existing class track (a pitfall I've fallen into a handful of times in Pathfinder).
I would like it if the idea of Archetypes was more fully integrated into the base system and multiclassing was just removed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
For Barbarians, the main problem with a single level dip is that you can easily run out of rounds of rage if you get into more than one fight per game day.
But there are conflicting design goals with classes between the first level of a character's career (which could represent many years of training) and 1st level in a class picked up later in the character's career. The ideal approach would be to set things up so that a character who begins his career as a Barbarian gets more at 1st level than a character who gains his 1st Barbarian level later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Barbarians, the main problem with a single level dip is that you can easily run out of rounds of rage if you get into more than one fight per game day.
But there are conflicting design goals with classes between the first level of a character's career (which could represent many years of training) and 1st level in a class picked up later in the character's career. The ideal approach would be to set things up so that a character who begins his career as a Barbarian gets more at 1st level than a character who gains his 1st Barbarian level later on.
That is a good point. It almost seems like there should be 0 level class that represents how you grew up. Traits max skills and typically max first hd are really the only difference from the first level and any subsequent level there after.
Maybe proficiencys and class skills shouldn't be gained from multiclassing. if you were trying to go for realism anyways. as far as in game you could say you spent a month or so training to get some of the stuff.
for josh-0-lantern I don't think removing multi-classing all together is the route to take. I usually go for more ways of doing things then less.
I wonder if anyone on the forums has done a list of the best classes to get a level 1 dip from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if anyone on the forums has done a list of the best classes to get a level 1 dip from.
^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
I am A-Okay with that. 99% of the concepts I've seen that use dipping is for purely mathematical advantages. A more controlled format that disallows branching out allows for better design space.
I am A-Okay with that. 99% of the concepts I've seen that use dipping is for purely mathematical advantages. A more controlled format that disallows branching out allows for better design space.^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
kind of how i feel about it then make the dip either mean more then just a numbers game or make it at least a meaningful investment to get all the advantages.
Is there really so much wrong with dipping for numbers? It shares an underlying motivation with dipping for flavor. It's difficult for me to properly put my thoughts to text for this, but I'll try.
I find it to be dismissive of the individual character to focus on what comprises them. That is to say "bard" is just a word on my sheet, but does not necessarily define my character. For example, say I wanted to make a Hunter from Bloodborne. A really good approximation of a Hunters abilities is found with a Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor with the Black Powder Inquisition.
For those who have not played Bloodborne: Hunters do not have an inherent divine connection like an Inquisitor, but the Inquisitor gives the best marriage of that characters mechanics.
To expand on that idea: if dipping allows me to bring my characters abilities closer to what their concept is, I see no reason it should be disallowed. In fact, I think it should be facilitated even more than it is now. I built an NPC that had 2 barbarian levels, 4 ranger levels, and 2 levels of a Prestige Class because I felt that was the best way capture that specific persons abilities. In that sense, I didn't really care about the inherent fluff of the classes was when I combined them as the end result was more important to me.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the ideal of dipping per say. I think the idea that you dip and get a more effective character out of dipping is a design problem. I just don't like the idea of the guy who took a level here a level there and ended up doing better in combat then the martial who kept to the same class. They should be equal in power if the design was perfect.
Assuming I agree, wouldn't a better solution be to focus on tweaking the class tracks themselves? To better incentivize people to stay single-classed, rather than punish those who dip?
It might be. That is kind of why I posted this to see what others opinions on the matter might be and to gather options that could remedy or assure me there is not a problem.
options
1. so like my idea that at 1st maybe a barbarian rage should be only +2 spread out the first level bonuses a bit so the class isn't as front loaded.
2. alternatively add more things in the class itself as one levels to make it worth staying in the class.
I don't want to punish a dipper just make it more of a meaningful choice then It being the most optimized path.
If I was rewriting Pathfinder and all that, I would be tempted to put the signature abilities at level 2-3. That way, you would have to work a bit harder than dipping one level to get to the juice of the bone. I think that would allow for a more organic character growth than the devout cleric who one day wakes up able to rage.
Dipping is fine as long as the classes are well designed so that they don't get too much power at 1st level.
The problem is that:
1) The barbarian pretty much only has two class features: rage and rage powers. And they get one of them at 1st level.
2) Almost all martials don't get any interesting abilities beyond level 9.
I can agree with that at most a fighter gets to move in heavy armor at full speed. would be nice to see a few more spaced out there.
I just don't like the idea of the guy who took a level here a level there and ended up doing better in combat then the martial who kept to the same class. They should be equal in power if the design was perfect.
The guy who picked his dip carefully invested more effort - shouldn't he get a slightly more powerful character in return?
I just don't like the idea of the guy who took a level here a level there and ended up doing better in combat then the martial who kept to the same class. They should be equal in power if the design was perfect.The guy who picked his dip carefully invested more effort - shouldn't he get a slightly more powerful character in return?
No.
Dipping is also an issue because Paizo spread the abilities out over a few levels. Now with some classes you can do it and still get the full benefit, but for classes like the barbarian the more you stay in the class the more it helps.
Personally, I don't think the short number of rage rounds is enough to make it worth it to dip only the first level of barbarian. At the same time the extra rounds from is not enough on it's own to stay in the class.
I wouldn't really change the rules. For the most part multiclassing causes enough problems that it is self-correcting.
I'd like the game to be free of multiclassing, but with fleshed-out and well-balanced VMC. It would make it okay for classes to be more front-loaded, getting a distinctive in-combat and out-of-Combat ability early on. That's a broad change, though, and overall I'm happy with class design in general. First level is just not a terribly fun place to hang out.
From what I have seen dipping seems to work best for martials or gish type builds. It is a great way to add interesting and powerful abilities and to shore up your character's saves. Considering that full-on casters tend to win in the end game allowing dipping/multiclassing helps to balance out the game.
Multiclassing is best handled by systems like D&D5E, where numerical progression is tied to your character level, and not your class level. Then, multiclassing becomes more of a flavor-mechanics choice than a numerical boost choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a far better designer than I am put it to me:
"The problem with dipping into barbarian isn't that 1st level is too good. The problem is that 2nd-20th aren't good enough to make you want to stay."
Spell progression is good enough to keep people playing single-classed full casters. Make rage and rage powers scale quadratically with barbarian level, the way spells scale with caster level, and you eliminate the dip incentive.
As a far better designer than I am put it to me:
"The problem with dipping into barbarian isn't that 1st level is too good. The problem is that 2nd-20th aren't good enough to make you want to stay."
Spell progression is good enough to keep people playing single-classed full casters. Make rage and rage powers scale quadratically with barbarian level, the way spells scale with caster level, and you eliminate the dip incentive.
I disagree. It was true of the 3.5 barbarian, but not of the Pathfinder barbarian. Barbarian rage powers are incredibly powerful, superstitious, beast totem, reckless abandon, come and get me. There is plenty of reason to stay in the barbarian class, the problem is it just takes a bit for those abilities to come online. Despite that, barbarian is still probably the strongest non-casting class in the game and is on par or beter than 4th level spell casters. I think an interesting way to prevent dipping into barbarian would be to reduce the rounds of rage at level 1 but provide a very large increase at level 2. Maybe you get a number of rounds of rage equal to your level squared + constitution modifier. Level 1 you might have 3 or 4 rounds of rage, but level you have 10 or 11. Then it' not really worth 3 rounds of increased combat potency to be fatigued in the middle of combat afterwards.
In general I agree with the sentiment that while dipping can be useful in short campaigns, over the course of 10 levels the shine wears off as the uses of their abilities can't keep up or aren't scaling like everyone else's abilities are.
Dipping is not doing much power-wise, if the campaign runs for a while. If it is only for 5 levels, it is usually good. At level 17 it does not matter at all, if I had dipped into barbarian earlier, I have better things to do than rage (a joke for a 17th level caster anyway). At level 5 it would have helped a great deal.
I don't mind people doing a dip, though. It satisfies them and they get usually something fun to play with, at least for a while. Meanwhile nobody here does any dipping, as campaigns tend to run for a long time and sooner or later the pure classes pull ahead. If you roll a leveled character it is easier to put in a dip, too, as actually playing through that is a pain.
For Barbarians, the main problem with a single level dip is that you can easily run out of rounds of rage if you get into more than one fight per game day.
But there are conflicting design goals with classes between the first level of a character's career (which could represent many years of training) and 1st level in a class picked up later in the character's career. The ideal approach would be to set things up so that a character who begins his career as a Barbarian gets more at 1st level than a character who gains his 1st Barbarian level later on.
That is a good point. It almost seems like there should be 0 level class that represents how you grew up. Traits max skills and typically max first hd are really the only difference from the first level and any subsequent level there after.
{. . .}
I've been toying with an idea like this for a while. Everybody would get at least 1 racial hit dice, which in the case of the "0 HD" creatures (most PCs) would correspond to the traditionally NPC classes, but fleshed out so as not to be just cannon fodder, but to correspond to background, including trait lists, weapon proficiencies, head starts in skills (partially replacing class skills), and embryonic class features that could be stacked onto your PC class. PC classes would become like prestige classes that have really low entry requirements, most commonly achievable with 1 level of background class.
I am A-Okay with that. 99% of the concepts I've seen that use dipping is for purely mathematical advantages. A more controlled format that disallows branching out allows for better design space.^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
That's a pretty big assumption to think that this applies to 99% of everyone . . . .
That's a pretty big assumption to think that this applies to 99% of...I am A-Okay with that. 99% of the concepts I've seen that use dipping is for purely mathematical advantages. A more controlled format that disallows branching out allows for better design space.^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
Not really, no. It's a game of numbers, classes are nothing but a collection of abilities, you only jump into another class for a feature that supports your build. I'd venture it's closer to 100% than any lower.
I don't see a problem with dipping as is. It's okay for certain builds that need certain things, but single classed builds are generally much more functional. Which is great. Staying in class is solid, but if you really need a thing you can dip to make something new.
Though I disagree that capstones are meant to be anti-dip material. Capstones are just there to be cool and something to look forward to, to show that you've reached the pinnacle of your class. Also probably a reaction to stuff like 3.5's rogue, who gets all of +1 BAB and +1 Reflex at level 20.
The real anti-dip fodder in Pathfinder are class features that actually scale for a damn. Stuff that scales with class level or requires a certain level to pick up. Big departure from 3.5 where some classes stopped getting new features as soon as level 1 and tend to rely on abilities that scale independently.
Though I disagree that capstones are meant to be anti-dip material. Capstones are just there to be cool and something to look forward to, to show that you've reached the pinnacle of your class. Also probably a reaction to stuff like 3.5's rogue, who gets all of +1 BAB and +1 Reflex at level 20.
I just need to comment on Crapstones for a second... almost all of them are complete junk and several classes don't even have them (granted they are the full casters and screw them). A handful of them other classes get earlier than 20... in short "I got to level 20 and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
Yeah, I never said they were GOOD at their job, but that's what their supposed to be.
They also shut down a handful of archetype combinations where two archetypes would be compatible except they both replace a class feature that you'll likely never actually see used in that campaign ever. That sucks too.
Not really, no. It's a game of numbers, classes are nothing but a collection of abilities, you only jump into another class for a feature that supports your build. I'd venture it's closer to 100% than any lower.That's a pretty big assumption to think that this applies to 99% of...I am A-Okay with that. 99% of the concepts I've seen that use dipping is for purely mathematical advantages. A more controlled format that disallows branching out allows for better design space.^If you remove multiclassing, you kill a lot of concepts that are not easily made into archetypes due to sheer numbers of concepts (even if they could individually be made into archetypes easily).
Haven't you ever seen anybody who wants to make something beyond numbers? The numbers aren't nothing -- in fact they're pretty important -- but in some cases playing numbers conjugation games is necessary just to make something viable (that would otherwise be horribly unoptimal), never mind overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really, no. It's a game of numbers, classes are nothing but a collection of abilities, you only jump into another class for a feature that supports your build. I'd venture it's closer to 100% than any lower.
When you're arguing the term that broadly then the act of picking a class in and of itself is part of that numbers game, which means you're doing it regardless of whether or not you multiclass.
Though I disagree that capstones are meant to be anti-dip material. Capstones are just there to be cool and something to look forward to, to show that you've reached the pinnacle of your class. Also probably a reaction to stuff like 3.5's rogue, who gets all of +1 BAB and +1 Reflex at level 20.I just need to comment on Crapstones for a second... almost all of them are complete junk and several classes don't even have them (granted they are the full casters and screw them). A handful of them other classes get earlier than 20... in short "I got to level 20 and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
LoL
My wizard will be more than happy to take Immortality as his capstone.
We can meet in a thousand years to discuss who got the better deal :P
Not really, no. It's a game of numbers, classes are nothing but a collection of abilities, you only jump into another class for a feature that supports your build. I'd venture it's closer to 100% than any lower.When you're arguing the term that broadly then the act of picking a class in and of itself is part of that numbers game, which means you're doing it regardless of whether or not you multiclass.
Numbers are a part of every choice in the game, from 1st level onwards.
Better numbers are not, however, the only reason a choice is made.
Though I disagree that capstones are meant to be anti-dip material. Capstones are just there to be cool and something to look forward to, to show that you've reached the pinnacle of your class. Also probably a reaction to stuff like 3.5's rogue, who gets all of +1 BAB and +1 Reflex at level 20.I just need to comment on Crapstones for a second... almost all of them are complete junk and several classes don't even have them (granted they are the full casters and screw them). A handful of them other classes get earlier than 20... in short "I got to level 20 and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"LoL
My wizard will be more than happy to take Immortality as his capstone.
We can meet in a thousand years to discuss who got the better deal :P
Pfft... immortality is a dime a dozen. Death has collected more pokemon than the souls of high level heroes.
been away a few days caught up I appreciate the intelligent and good points everyone made.
I see some argue that dipping is not a problem and doesn't pay-off in the long run i'm intrigued by this I may have to research some builds and do some comparisons. If this is right its a non-issue anyways.
If not then I like the idea of giving more scaling rewards to classes If your doing a 2nd edition you would want to buff the monsters some more with that.
Now I think barbarian is a good class to stay in because rage keeps improving and getting more things to I don't think as many people dip out of barbarian to get better at combat I think its more other classes picking up a level of barb to get better.
The idea of 0 level classes is still kind of interesting too.
Ideally, Paizo will take the idea they had in Variant Multiclassing, and write out a full system that can be implemented to create full realized meshes of character classes. (Someone mentioned an Advanced Multiclassing Guide as a new release with such rules, and including the VMC breakdowns for all the classes as well as other variants that may or may not trade out things other than feats, or may simply include different/better packages based on what the player wants.) The ACG was an attempt to do this, but resulted mostly in more class bloat and less niche satisfaction.
From what I've been told from my 5e friends (anecdotal) the 5e multiclassing rules create really OP characters when done correctly, and makes the game not fun. (admittedly though, beyond playing through one or two levels I found that system to be boring since all the bookwork is done at creation and the rest of the game is more or less just waiting to get your numbers up.)
I'm all for nerfing the starting packages for classes other than your favored class, meaning you can't get all the benefits from level dipping. Provided said nerfs are reasonable. Consider an inverse of the Gestalt rules (taking the lower HD/BAB/Save) in exchange for class features, or conversely taking the higher HD/BAB/Save in exchange for nerfed, nonexistant, or less effective class features.
I have not had (again, anecdotal) too many bad experiences with Multiclassing (abuse-wise) in PFRPG as I had in 3.5.
3rd was worse however If i remember correctly you could take one level of bard and then put skills in performance as a cross-class skill and gain every bard song without taking another level in bard and ranger was the same way for two weapon fighting (of course that was a RAW thing)
From what I've been told from my 5e friends (anecdotal) the 5e multiclassing rules create really OP characters when done correctly, and makes the game not fun.
The way 5e scales makes dips a lot more flexible, but I'm not sure I'd say "really OP", at all. There are some powerful builds, but there are just as many powerful single classed builds.
But there is an inherent disdain toward multiclassing that seems to make people find a powerful build with a 3 level dip in another class inherently more offensive than an equally or even more powerful build that spends 20 levels in one class and from my experience 5e's anti-optimization community is even more vocal than most other games'.
I'm all for nerfing the starting packages for classes other than your favored class, meaning you can't get all the benefits from level dipping.
I just don't see a reason to. Pathfinder as a system pretty heavily discourages multiclassing between losing FCBs and the way nearly every class feature is dependent on your class level and outside a few theory-op quirks single classed characters are pretty dominant, at this point making it even worse just feel punitive more than it does balancing.
Really I think if there's any change that needs to be made it's making multiclassing better for characters who want to invest heavily in more than one class.
Single classed characters are great and dips can be good but, for instance, ten levels in two base classes is basically always going to be a losing call.
I think multi-classing for full BAB characters is usually advantageous but hardly ever is it for casters so that could be improved but would take a major overhaul.
I think multi-classing for full BAB characters is usually advantageousYou're still thinking 3.5 my friend. Just about the only advantageous multiclass I can think of is the Swashbuckler who dips Paladin for saves or spells, or the Paladin who dips Fighter for feats, and that's just because those classes are rather starved.
Debatable.
I've seen tons of swashbuckler dips, fighter dips, brawler dips, slayer dips... I've seen lots of gunslingers go ranger after getting gun training. I personally dipped gunslinger for my inquisitor. Some cavaliers get the feat that lets their mount scale with character level and then multiclass. Slayer/swashbucklers are very common in PFS.
It's a beautiful thing, really. I just wish martial classes had more interesting class features beyond 10th level.
So I noticed level dipping for first level class features is kind of popular. One i've been guilty of doing myself is 1 dip into barbarian for rage and then move on to another martial. Pathfinder discourages it a bit more then 3.5 with the capstones but most games don't go that high so its hardly a real dissuasion.
This seems less common with casters unless your doing something weird you generally would just like to have another level of the same caster. 3rd level wizard spell or get 1st level cleric spell and then slow down your spell progression kind of a no duh.
But barb and some other classes look like they are ripe for the dip.
If they were redone or a PF2 came out do you think the game would be improved by making these dippable classes less dippy.Or do you feel it doesn't matter and there is nothing wrong with dipping.
so would you say reduce the 1st level rage bonus form +4 to maybe just +2 I would find it harder to justify dipping into another class just for a +1/+1 and then move it up to +4 within the next 2 levels. 3 level dip for +4 str +4 con and +2 will is less desirable but not entirely not worth it.
On the flip side giving the classes to few features at 1st level might make them not feel like that class any more starting out. i guess you could look at that like the transition form farmer to adventurer however.
Dipping into barbarian gives you rage, a d12 hit die for the level, and saves and BAB. However, the barbarian class features are not usable under certain conditions. And you can't be lawful, or you lose them. Additionally, the number of rounds of rage you get per day is based on your barbarian levels, not your character level. Ergo, one level isn't really going to benefit you overly much.
It's pretty well balanced.