(i'm assuming that there's even multiclassing here)
Problem: Classes need to be functional right out of the box. That means the ability has to go at first level. Swashbucklers need to parry , barbarians need to rage etc. This means though that there's some really, really good abilities to get by dipping.
solution: The really powerful abilities are signature abilities. "If this is your first level in the class you gain this ability. if its not your first level in the class you get it at third level instead".
I don't hate that idea, but it's hard to imagine how to completely avoid it.
What counts as "the really powerful signature abilities?" ends up being the hard line.
Rage? Panache? Parrying? Spellcasting?
That makes some multiclassing options not even viable, unless that third level provides everything retroactively.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with dipping? Am I having badwrongfun again? :P
|
Problem is it makes pazio has to balance things for other classes.Since too good abilities for classes to shine cant be at level 1 it makes builds start at higher levels to prevent powergaming which makes other single class builds or people that doesnt want to multiclass just wait for at least 5 levels for XP and it gets boring which also leads to more trap options on archtypes such as abilities that is needed for a class idea to work but cant be placed on level 1 just to prevent other people from powergaming.All things considered easy multiclassing bores people esspacially spellcasters unless they optimize which can be a bit problematic for the gm.
EDİT:To be clear.I am saying it is boring at lower level play not because ı am doing something wrong but because of other people that can be on a different continent did something wierd with their build and now ı am paying the price for the flavor ı want in a game that is supposed to be fun from level 1 to 20.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that dipping can make characters that are (relatively) too strong at the time by dipping into front loaded classes. As you mention a barbarian dip for rage gives you +2 to attack and damage. Dipping alchemist can get you mutagen for another +2 to attack and damage.
The downside is characters that dip like that tend to fall off at later levels when the lack the staying power to keep those buffs running (assuming you have enough combat each adventuring day to make it matter).
I do personally think reducing the front loaded nature of classes to reduce dipping purely for the bonuses is something I would like but can also see where many people wouldn't like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this would also punish multiclassing in a certain order, though, too. If you want to take a few levels in one thing at the start, but take most of your levels in another class, that punishes your main class of choice. Perhaps if it worked like selecting a Favoured Class where you select one at character creation but don't need to take a level in it immediately?
The downside is characters that dip like that tend to fall off at later levels when the lack the staying power to keep those buffs running (assuming you have enough combat each adventuring day to make it matter).
There's a lot of truth to that but the lower levels are the ones most played so IMO this is a problem particularly round a table of players unequal system mastery. Of course that's still a problem without dips but I would contend dips make it worse. PF1 archetypes solve most of the customisation reasons for doing this IMO (I'm sure somebody will disagree).
I feel like this would also punish multiclassing in a certain order, though, too. If you want to take a few levels in one thing at the start, but take most of your levels in another class, that punishes your main class of choice. Perhaps if it worked like selecting a Favoured Class where you select one at character creation but don't need to take a level in it immediately?
That would be an acceptable solution in my mind.
You select one class (at character creation) and you would gain the signature ability at level 1 of the class, with signature abilities being things like rage. Otherwise you wouldn't get the signature abilities until level 3.
Actually, this has some similarities to VMC except, you end up with the ability to get more class features than with how VMC currently works.
If classes are designed to be modular (with specific features intended to be filled from regular choice like Magus Arcana, say) so that we can easily swap out stuff with archetypes, I don't see why you couldn't just design all multiclassing to work this way.
Like hypothetically if every class gets a rogue talent, arcane discovery, bloodline power, whatever at every other level, you could make something like Variant Multiclassing wherein every other even level you choose something from the list of your second class.
You would need very different class design than you currently have, but since we're talking about a new edition of the game it would be possible.
Suggested solution to Biscotti level dipping: Nothing IMO. I like the option to dip or not and don't feel the need to have one set of options 'punished' because it wasn't your first pick.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with dipping? Am I having badwrongfun again? :P
Dipping isn't badwrongfun, but I'm going to have a less pleasant time if it's strongly optimal (especially to make multiple dips). If that's the case, I would feel like there was a tradeoff between character power and that character's thematic cohesion.
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?
Because you want some cohesion of the class, thats why the mechanic exists at all.
It lets you make the level 1 abilities more powerful without worrying about what will happen if someone dips for all of them.
Makes multiclassing an actual choice without making it a given
It evens out the power between "well i know our group only plays to 8 or 12" and the folks theorycrafting out to 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with dipping? Am I having badwrongfun again? :PDipping isn't badwrongfun, but I'm going to have a less pleasant time if it's strongly optimal (especially to make multiple dips). If that's the case, I would feel like there was a tradeoff between character power and that character's thematic cohesion.
Dippping can add to a characters thematic cohesion - when you can't do exactly what you want to do without it.
As long as the solution to Biscotti level dipping, doesn't affect my ability to Multiclass (I only tend to use 2-3 classes per character build), then I'm absolutely fine with it.
Ditch classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?Because powergaming and munchkining are bad.
And the reason for "powergaming and munchkining" is multiclassing? Do you see that as the main reason people multiclass? In general, most times I see a multiclass character it's LESS powerful/optimal than one that isn't.
|
And the reason for "powergaming and munchkining" is multiclassing? Do you see that as the main reason people multiclass? In general, most times I see a multiclass character it's LESS powerful/optimal than one that isn't.Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?Because powergaming and munchkining are bad.
Dipping is a specific type of multi-classing, and, yes, it is my experience that people generally do it for munchkiny reasons, and would admit as much. I'm sure it's not everyone. I'm sure I'm about to hear from loads of people who dip for flavor reasons.
I wouldn't stick the /core abilities that make a class function recognizably as that class/ behind a Signature Ability, but you could stick a desirable secondary ability behind such a thing, sure. In fact, the third party D20 game Spycraft did just this. You got the Signature Ability of the first class you took at level 1, and no matter how much you multiclassed afterwards, that was it.
Now, PF2E doesn't necessarily have to be so restrictive as that. Maybe you let multiclassers still get those secondary abilities by paying feats for them. That's still an opportunity cost. Just depends really on how you balance them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for munchkiny reasons
Really? I see dipping because someone wants to learn a weapon or how to wear armor or something along those line and find that it's easier to take a level of, say fighter, to get it instead of using a feat. Or they want to TWF and don't have a high dex so they take brawler. None of it seems out of line and make in and out of game sense.
You're going to have to give actual examples for "munchkiny" dipping and specific reasons for you to think it so. Or just an explanation of what you think "munchkiny" is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
for munchkiny reasonsReally? I see dipping because someone wants to learn a weapon or how to wear armor or something along those line and find that it's easier to take a level of, say fighter, to get it instead of using a feat. Or they want to TWF and don't have a high dex so they take brawler. None of it seems out of line and make in and out of game sense.
You're going to have to give actual examples for "munchkiny" dipping and specific reasons for you to think it so. Or just an explanation of what you think "munchkiny" is.
He's probably referring to the myth of munchkins trying to dip Paladin for special powers, when that really hasn't been a thing other than the original release of 3.0 D&D. The situations in which someone would actually benefit long term from dipping a low tier class like Paladin instead of hurting their long term progression are vanishingly small.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's probably referring to the myth of munchkins trying to dip Paladin for special powers, when that really hasn't been a thing other than the original release of 3.0 D&D. The situations in which someone would actually benefit long term from dipping a low tier class like Paladin instead of hurting their long term progression are vanishingly small.for munchkiny reasonsReally? I see dipping because someone wants to learn a weapon or how to wear armor or something along those line and find that it's easier to take a level of, say fighter, to get it instead of using a feat. Or they want to TWF and don't have a high dex so they take brawler. None of it seems out of line and make in and out of game sense.
You're going to have to give actual examples for "munchkiny" dipping and specific reasons for you to think it so. Or just an explanation of what you think "munchkiny" is.
So they can 'munchkin' cha to saves as long as you can follow the code? If that's the case then just be a paladin... A dip into paladin is more likely to make you LESS powerful, especially once you fall. It's kind of the anti-'munchkin' dip.
|
|
He's probably referring to the myth of munchkins trying to dip Paladin for special powers, when that really hasn't been a thing other than the original release of 3.0 D&D. The situations in which someone would actually benefit long term from dipping a low tier class like Paladin instead of hurting their long term progression are vanishingly small.for munchkiny reasonsReally? I see dipping because someone wants to learn a weapon or how to wear armor or something along those line and find that it's easier to take a level of, say fighter, to get it instead of using a feat. Or they want to TWF and don't have a high dex so they take brawler. None of it seems out of line and make in and out of game sense.
You're going to have to give actual examples for "munchkiny" dipping and specific reasons for you to think it so. Or just an explanation of what you think "munchkiny" is.
If so many people don't know better that it's a myth, who's to say some of those people don't actually do it? I want to say I've even seen someone do so. I can't currently remember if it was one level or two (and why) but I think it might have been this.
I once had a player with four different classes at what I think was level 10 or so. He did so solely to have an optimized skill-monkey, and had mods (as in for all of his skills) around 30 and inspiration dice.
I recall the best munchkiner I know telling me that multiclassing is highly optimal in PFS where you will never reach higher levels where high-level abilities show up. I don't think I ever saw a character of his not multiclass. This is the guy who got 20 magic missiles a day at 1st level.
I once saw a thread where people were whining about how some minor change to the gunslinger had made some of its mid-level abilities worse, this making it "only worth a 5 level dip now."
I can't say those are the best examples, but those are the ones I had in mind, roughly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to guess you've never seen any real optimization...
Gunslinger just has NO real impact past 5th: it's not a munchkin/optimization thing but a reality thing. It's abilities just aren't very good past 5th.
"20 magic missiles a day at 1st level": this isn't munchkin but illegal/impossible...
"I once had a player with four different classes at what I think was level 10 or so. He did so solely to have an optimized skill-monkey, and had mods (as in for all of his skills) around 30 and inspiration dice.": and? It's not hard to get a lot of skill bonuses without dipping and making skill checks at 10th isn't that impressive. Anything that character can do a wizard can do better... :P I have a phantom thief Urogue that has every skill as a class skill and really can't fail a check, all single class...
"I recall the best munchkiner I know telling me that multiclassing is highly optimal in PFS where you will never reach higher levels where high-level abilities show up." This is the closest thing I can see to being right. If you aren't getting very high in level before you stop, multiclassing can get you viable results: It just not a winning strategy long term. So if you're only going to 5th or 6th, it might be some issue but that lessens drastically after that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved?Because powergaming and munchkining are bad.
except that you know your munchkin is my standard and a third persons 'so weak, I wouldn't even bother'. I enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game the little tweaks and uplifts to make a synergistic whole greater than its parts.
I guess I am having badwrongfun again!
I feel like a goal in PF2 should be to make "dipping" less attractive by both reducing the multiplicative effect of strategic multiclassing, and also to make "what you would be dipping for" available somehow in one's original class.
Like people would sometimes dip into fighter in PF1 because it gave you medium armor, heavy armor, and martial weapon proficiency with a combat feat on top. Since normally one would need to spend 3 feats to get those proficiencies, you're gaining 4 feats with one level.
In the new system, since proficiencies are things that just advance somehow, you could just choose to learn to better use that cool weapon or armor you're untrained in in lieu of some other skill. So dipping for proficiency is less attractive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another incredibly common dip was a level of inspired blade for a swashbuckler, which gave you dex-to hit and damage and weapon focus for a one level dip, which is nice because the investigator is bad at combat (particularly dex-based combat) before level 4 or so.
So perhaps the solution here would be to make the PF2 Investigator better at fighting at low levels, so it's less frustrating to play?
|
|
We never said we are afraid of multiclassing PCs.Problem is it makes class design make you wait for 5 levels worth of xp everytime you start playing.Then you see builds opening up at level 5-7-9-12.Which is very anoying to wait for.Did you ever wait for to do the thing you wanted your character to do for severals levels and thought that was exiciting?I dont think you did.Which is why we are saying there should be some preemptive measure so classes can be loaded with their class abilities early on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dipping trades power for versatility. Not an issue.
Problem is it makes class design make you wait for 5 levels worth of xp everytime you start playing.
LOL THAT'S the reason some people multiclassed... PossibleCabbage points this out with the inspired blade dip for the investigator: if they hadn't been SO worried about dipping into the investigator they wouldn't have encouraged people dipping OUT of it. The moral is to make a class good enough on it's own that you're losing something you want to pick up another class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People need to get over the fear of their players selecting classes to create the character they want.
What if we make it a lot easier to build the character you want within a single class, though? It seems like this would be a potential benefit of the incredibly modular class design we're going with for PF2.
Like suppose they printed a general feat that was essentially "Select a class other than the class you selected at first level, you gain [whatever class defining feature that class got at 1st level, like rage], and any time you gain a class feat you may select from the list of class feats from either of the two classes using your character level as the appropriate class level."
Now it's really, really easy to make a monk-ish wizard or a barbarian-ey alchemist and you don't even need to multiclass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People need to get over the fear of their players selecting classes to create the character they want.What if we make it a lot easier to build the character you want within a single class, though? It seems like this would be a potential benefit of the incredibly modular class design we're going with for PF2.
Like suppose they printed a general feat that was essentially "Select a class other than the class you selected at first level, you gain [whatever class defining feature that class got at 1st level, like rage], and any time you gain a class feat you may select from the list of class feats from either of the two classes using your character level as the appropriate class level."
Now it's really, really easy to make a monk-ish wizard or a barbarian-ey alchemist and you don't even need to multiclass.
4E went this route. It didn't scratch the itch for me. Though I feel PF2 might be modular enough to make it work. Ill still miss dipping though. Lets you make those hybrid classes right out of the gate.
|
|
You misunderstood me.I am saying if you load classes early on with their abilities that allows builds to come online at early levels then at current version of PF 1e you wouldnt be able to stop powergaming with multiclassing.I am not saying it is beneficial now.I am saying putting abilities at higher levels is to keep people from getting them.Which makes you wait for a time to get them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People need to get over the fear of their players selecting classes to create the character they want.What if we make it a lot easier to build the character you want within a single class, though? It seems like this would be a potential benefit of the incredibly modular class design we're going with for PF2.
Like suppose they printed a general feat that was essentially "Select a class other than the class you selected at first level, you gain [whatever class defining feature that class got at 1st level, like rage], and any time you gain a class feat you may select from the list of class feats from either of the two classes using your character level as the appropriate class level."
Now it's really, really easy to make a monk-ish wizard or a barbarian-ey alchemist and you don't even need to multiclass.
That's much like unchained VMC. Trade feats for class abilities from another class. I could see that being cool but I could also see wanting the base abilities of another class added to yours: adding a level of fighter is still most likely going to net you nifty armor/weapon options and with reactions seemingly linked to class, that in itself is a mighty good reason to do it.
I am saying if you load classes early on with their abilities that allows builds to come online at early levels then at current version of PF 1e you wouldnt be able to stop powergaming with multiclassing.
No, I understood. I just don't agree it's a problem/issue. You make a class worth staying in and you aren't gaining anything by switching.
I am saying putting abilities at higher levels is to keep people from getting them.Which makes you wait for a time to get them.
Yep, and I'm saying that's dumb and pointless when you could instead make your base classes good enough to make switching a moot point in powergaming. it's when classes have those 15 straight 'meh' levels that people start thinking 'well why not pick up THIS class instead of that junk'... It's why 6+ gunslingers are mostly pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much we can change the psychology of dipping if we make it so the non-spellcasting classes legitimately do get really cool stuff at higher levels (not that they don't get cool stuff at low levels, it's just not as cool).
Given Seifter's comment about how they want characters who are very good at a thing be capable of clearly unrealistic demonstrations of aptitude it's entirely likely that we'll end up with a fighter who gets more out of their levels than combat feats and weapon training.