Stop the 1 Level Class Dip


Prerelease Discussion

201 to 250 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why do I get the impression that 959 is basically playing a more complicated, team vs 1 chess variant?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I'm not advocating that level dipping be eliminated, but that it should inherently be mechanically inferior e.g. any class bonuses/durations/daily uses, are divided by the number of classes you have, rounded down.

Hell no.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
IC, sure, whatever floats your boat. OOC, your'e hamstringing the player's ability to work together as a team. Knowing who and what you're fellow players are doing and how they do it facilitates teamwork and social bonding outside of the game.

This is actually a load of crap. Class can be more concealing or revealing in many cases. A bad-touch Cleric with no healing is gonna give people way more info by listing capabilities than by saying 'I'm a Cleric.' because the latter results in a bunch of unfortunate and incorrect assumptions in an environment like PFS where these introductions need to be quick. Many other concepts and effective character builds are likewise misleading, any Bard without Inspire Courage, just for example.

N N 959 wrote:
This is especially true of new players who are not going to recognize spells or feats used by others. It's a detractor in PFS when teaming with players who have no concept of cooperation or who constantly get in each other's way because no one looks at the other's characters, or worse doesn't care.

This is an excellent reason to discuss character abilities and tactics, but Class is often only incidental to those depending on the character and build (see the example above...I can think of many others).

N N 959 wrote:
When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.

In a long term game? Sure, assuming nobody objects. In PFS? I get the distinct impression there's rarely time for this.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.
In a long term game? Sure, assuming nobody objects. In PFS? I get the distinct impression there's rarely time for this.

My experience is also that there is seldom time for much past a quick introduction in PFS before the action starts. I often have about half the table there fifteen or more minutes before start, and one person comes in just as we are to start.

Even passing the character sheets around wouldn't always help since some things can be rather subtle. As an example, why does my Bloodrager who worships Nethys use a wand of Endure Elements each day, regardless of how hot or cold it may be?

A group working together for a long time can be much more effective than a group of strangers. They do get to know how the other characters will react and what their capabilities are. Reviewing a character sheet will usually only give you part of the picture.


Deadmanwalking wrote:


This is actually a load of crap. Class can be more concealing or revealing in many cases. A bad-touch Cleric with no healing is gonna give people way more info by listing capabilities than by saying 'I'm a Cleric.' because the latter results in a bunch of unfortunate and incorrect assumptions in an environment like PFS where these introductions need to be quick. Many other concepts and effective character builds are likewise misleading, any Bard without Inspire Courage, just for example.

It's not a load of crap because I'm not advocating someone simply say what class they are and nothing else.

I've been on teams where the GM doesn't want players to mention their class and wants to shove this concept of there being no class down everyone's throat. The teams sucks and the game play sucks. Players feel even more prohibited from asking anything OOC about fellow players and everyone acts like a soloist.

Most players aren't practiced in the art of conveying OOC information through IC terms and trying to do so is way more painful and time consuming. "I beat things with a stick" doesn't convey whether you use Power Attack, Cleave, have Vital Strike, get Sneak Attack, have Combat Reflexes, or a host of other things that can be leveraged by teammates.

It's a game. It's not reality. It's not against the law to talk about it like it's a game and use OOC game terms.

Quote:
In a long term game? Sure, assuming nobody objects. In PFS? I get the distinct impression there's rarely time for this.

So how is there time to convey this IC, which lacks the vocabulary and paradigms to accurately convey the same information that can be obtained by looking at someone's sheet for 30 seconds?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a pfs Type scenario, quick team integration is important.
At home games (which is the only type I do) I prefer soloists who take some time to get a feel for how to work together over time. An organic gelling of the team.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.

Hell no to that.

If another player wanted to know my character's capabilities, I'd ask them to either roleplay the conversation, or wait and find out. I definitely don't give my character sheet to other players on request. If the GM asks to see my sheet, of course I'd hand it over, but not to players.


RumpinRufus wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.

Hell no to that.

If another player wanted to know my character's capabilities, I'd ask them to either roleplay the conversation, or wait and find out. I definitely don't give my character sheet to other players on request. If the GM asks to see my sheet, of course I'd hand it over, but not to players.

I'm talking in the context of PFS, but I've never had a game where the IC dynamic was improved because people followed your format. It mostly undermined the game because the lack of teamwork made things harder than they were supposed to be and that, in turn, was more demoralizing.

I've certainly seen individual players believe that they were engaged in some top notch roleplaying by hiding their info. Never mind that anytime they had to make dice rolls and use abilities, these things were all transparent OOC. The only thing this secretiveness facilitated, IME, is player isolationism in what is suppose to be a social game. Some of the best conversations I've had with players involves their builds and tactics.

I've found that if I want to roleplay some specific personality, it often helps for people to know my mechanics so that they can understand what I'm doing and that allows them to help enable that.

Reminds me of a Carrion Crawl attempt I was in. We had a guy who was an oracle, but didn't want anyone in the party to know he could cast spells. He got into an argument with the GM about being able to use Bluff to hide the spell casting. He got furious with me OOC when my character suggested he cast Detect Magic at one point. Later when I had my character make an inference about the character's spell casting (based on in game observations) he flew into an OOC rage that I couldn't know anything about him. It was pretty ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
BretI wrote:


When I GM in PFS, part of my startup is asking each player to introduce themselves, their character, and tell everyone what abilities their character brings to the table. I do not ask that they tell each other their classes.

IC, sure, whatever floats your boat. OOC, your'e hamstringing the player's ability to work together as a team. Knowing who and what you're fellow players are doing and how they do it facilitates teamwork and social bonding outside of the game.

This is especially true of new players who are not going to recognize spells or feats used by others. It's a detractor in PFS when teaming with players who have no concept of cooperation or who constantly get in each other's way because no one looks at the other's characters, or worse doesn't care.

When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.

Wouldn't it be bad to expect new players to have to learn their character AND the characters of every other player? I mean vets want to do that sure but that kinda of info overload can scare players away.

Myself, I try to do more a middle ground. I ask for "What is your character, what is their class, and what do you see them doing for the team". It's probably more general than that but I'd like my players to have an idea of what each person is going to be doing to avoid getting characters that overlap.


MerlinCross wrote:


Wouldn't it be bad to expect new players to have to learn their character AND the characters of every other player? I mean vets want to do that sure but that kinda of info overload can scare players away.

I don't expect players to memorize skill ranks or predict tactical outcomes of fellow players. But looking at a sheet and seeing someone is multi-classed versus pure Cleric helps. Seeing that someone does not have any cure spells memorized or that someone has all cure spells memorized, is very helpful in not only teamwork but in shaping expectations.

Quote:
Myself, I try to do more a middle ground. I ask for "What is your character, what is their class, and what do you see them doing for the team". It's probably more general than that but I'd like my players to have an idea of what each person is going to be doing to avoid getting characters that overlap.

Sure. Anything that encourages the players to think beyond their own characters is what I'm after. Reducing info exchange to "I beat things with a stick" is counterproductive and sets a tone, ime, that players shouldn't be accurate or go into depth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would walk away from a table that expected me to show my sheet to other players.

That's private between each player and the GM


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
When I GM, I tell the players to review everyone else's character sheet and assume they have working knowledge of everyone else's skills and abilities.

Hell no to that.

If another player wanted to know my character's capabilities, I'd ask them to either roleplay the conversation, or wait and find out. I definitely don't give my character sheet to other players on request. If the GM asks to see my sheet, of course I'd hand it over, but not to players.

I'm talking in the context of PFS, but I've never had a game where the IC dynamic was improved because people followed your format. It mostly undermined the game because the lack of teamwork made things harder than they were supposed to be and that, in turn, was more demoralizing.

I've certainly seen individual players believe that they were engaged in some top notch roleplaying by hiding their info. Never mind that anytime they had to make dice rolls and use abilities, these things were all transparent OOC. The only thing this secretiveness facilitated, IME, is player isolationism in what is suppose to be a social game. Some of the best conversations I've had with players involves their builds and tactics.

I've found that if I want to roleplay some specific personality, it often helps for people to know my mechanics so that they can understand what I'm doing and that allows them to help enable that.

Reminds me of a Carrion Crawl attempt I was in. We had a guy who was an oracle, but didn't want anyone in the party to know he could cast spells. He got into an argument with the GM about being able to use Bluff to hide the spell casting. He got furious with me OOC when my character suggested he cast Detect Magic at one point. Later when I had my character make an inference about the character's spell casting (based on in game observations) he flew into an OOC rage that I couldn't know anything about him. It was pretty ridiculous.

I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some character concepts exist only because of class dip. Like the Kung-fu panda druid (or whatever flavor you want to give to your monk-druid who does martial arts in animal form).

I'm not sure what we will gain by banning 1st lvl dips will outweight what we will lose.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading the past few pages, I realize multiclassing is more important than ever.

Penalizing characters for doing it makes the game unenjoyable.

If people don't want to multiclass, they are not forced to. If GM's want to reign stuff in, houserule it. The game shouldn't tell somebody it's wrongbadfun to want to expand beyond the confines of a certain class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Combat Monster wrote:

Penalizing characters for doing it makes the game unenjoyable.

.

Right, because isn't really isn't about roleplaying at all. What people want is a way to get the mechanical advantage that class dipping affords, despite that never being the intention.

If it were really about roleplaying a character concept, then people wouldn't complain about a penalty because they'd still get the skills and abilities that they want, they just wouldn't be as good at that thing as someone who focused on the class that gave it.


RumpinRufus wrote:
I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.

It's a game. It's not reality. There are aspects of the game that can only be communicated OOC because there is no IC analogy. You aren't killing the game by telling someone OOC that you are 2 Rogue / 3 Monk, or that you have an 18 STR. You really aren't, but to each his/her own.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

Right, because isn't really isn't about roleplaying at all. What people want is a way to get the mechanical advantage that class dipping affords, despite that never being the intention.

If it were really about roleplaying a character concept, then people wouldn't complain about a penalty because they'd still get the skills and abilities that they want, they just wouldn't be as good at that thing as someone who focused on the class that gave it.

Why do you keep making this false equivalency?

Role-playing is about playing a character. That character has certain abilities according to its concept.

Unless Paizo goes full on classless multiclassing will remain a means to realize a character.

Most people don't envision a character lagging behind/weaker than her peers.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Why do you keep making this false equivalency?

Role-playing is about playing a character. That character has certain abilities according to its concept.

Unless Paizo goes full on classless multiclassing will remain a means to realize a character.

I'm not making false equivalency, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. If I spent two years as a doctor and learned to suture, my suturing should not be as good as someone who has been a doctor for three years. All the skills/abilities one gets in a class should get better every level you stay in that class.

Quote:
Most people don't envision a character lagging behind/weaker than her peers.

Oh, its worse than that. But the undeniable fact is that the capstone ability in classes that Paizo designed is proof positive that Paizo felt pure-classing is meant to be stronger. The problem is that the way the classes are implemented and the fact that like no one ever gets to level 20, means it doesn't play out that way. I'm advocating that Paizo fix that. Make the pure-classing stronger not at the end, but at the beginning and during middle as well.

Paizo has spent all this energy and time designing classes out to level 20 and failed to give players a compelling reason to get there. Well, now they can fix that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, they can fix the game by

A: improving quality of life and levels for all classes rather than just the ones that get spells.

B: continuing the trend from PF1 to further enhance the diversity and flexibility of classes (whether by archetypes or level by level choices such as feats and class abilities and

C: finally putting Class=Character as a default assumption (rather than training wheels for new players) in the coffin in clear and concise text. Paizo writes dome good flavor, but flavor is mutable


kyrt-ryder wrote:


C: finally putting Class=Character as a default assumption (rather than training wheels for new players) in the coffin in clear and concise text. Paizo writes dome good flavor, but flavor is mutable

There are handful of RPG games that don't have classes, why aren't you playing those instead?

Class=Character is the foundation of this game. Getting rid of that is a huge mistake. They don't have to get rid of multi-classing, they need to restore what made this game work from the get-go. My experience with AD&D 2.0 is that they tried to get rid of subtypes and facilitate everything through customization. Huge mistake and 2.0 was a total failure.


N N 959 wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:

Penalizing characters for doing it makes the game unenjoyable.

.

Right, because isn't really isn't about roleplaying at all. What people want is a way to get the mechanical advantage that class dipping affords, despite that never being the intention.

If it were really about roleplaying a character concept, then people wouldn't complain about a penalty because they'd still get the skills and abilities that they want, they just wouldn't be as good at that thing as someone who focused on the class that gave it.

Ok.

I have this concept for a character: I want to play a druid that polymorph into a kung-fu martial artist tiger.

How can I play that concept without multiclassing?


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Ok.

I have this concept for a character: I want to play a druid that polymorph into a kung-fu martial artist tiger.

How can I play that concept without multiclassing?

Multi-class all you want. Just don't expect to be as good at druidic things or kung fu as a pure druid or monk with the same character levels.

I said early on that Paizo is not going to put the multi-classing genie back in the bottle.


Alternatively, give abilities to a class at 1st level, that you lose if you multi-class. I think someone has already suggested this.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Combat Monster wrote:

Penalizing characters for doing it makes the game unenjoyable.

.

Right, because isn't really isn't about roleplaying at all. What people want is a way to get the mechanical advantage that class dipping affords, despite that never being the intention.

If it were really about roleplaying a character concept, then people wouldn't complain about a penalty because they'd still get the skills and abilities that they want, they just wouldn't be as good at that thing as someone who focused on the class that gave it.

Ok.

I have this concept for a character: I want to play a druid that polymorph into a kung-fu martial artist tiger.

How can I play that concept without multiclassing?

Alternate answer; Well if you don't want spell casting, Monk Weretiger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy the framework of levels, the way Pathfinder characters go from scrubs trying to get by in a dangerous world to its supreme overlords and the stories in between.

I enjoy golarion with its kitchen sink fantasy beauty.

And I do appreciate the existence of classes as a basic framework upon which to build a character, NOT as a proscription of who a character can be.

In an ideal world PF2 would allow unimpeded multiclassing and open selection of abilities available to the additional classes scaling on character level.

They will never be as good at that class as someone who stick with it, but the abilities they took from it will be just as strong as someone who took the class 1-20


N N 959 wrote:
Alternatively, give abilities to a class at 1st level, that you lose if you multi-class. I think someone has already suggested this.

Or....have abilities become locked in after a certain number of levels. For example, once you get to Ranger 2, your Track bonus is permanent. Ranger 4, your 1st Favored Enemy is permanent. If you leave the class before the lock in level, you lose the ability.

The advantage here is that you can give more abilities at 1st level without having to scale them each level and without having to worry about people cherry picking them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Alternatively, give abilities to a class at 1st level, that you lose if you multi-class. I think someone has already suggested this.
Or....have abilities become locked in after a certain number of levels. For example, once you get to Ranger 2, your Track bonus is permanent. Ranger 4, your 1st Favored Enemy is permanent. If you leave the class before the lock in level, you lose the ability.

That makes no sense. The level is already part of who the character is.


I think there's a middle ground here.

The big 1/2 level dips are so strong because they function independant of the parent class level.

1 level of rogue for a non-scaling sneak attack isnt a problem.

2 levels of rogue for evasion that scales mostly independantly of any further rogue levels is less clear-cut.

Divine Grace (level 2 paladin) being another good example.

I'd rather have multiclassing do something than nothing, but there could be more care taken to ensure the first few levels don't have abilities that scale amazingly well outside of their parent class.

Things like capping divine grace's benefit to the lower of charisma bonus or paladin levels can go a long way to ensuring that the ability is still usable without being a massive dipping power spike.


RumpinRufus wrote:
I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.

You cannot play any RPG without metagaming at some level.

You know what does make the game a lot more fun? When I sit down at table with a complete stranger and say, "Hey, would love to see what everyone is playing and learn about your builds, here is mine." Asking these questions IC doesn't work. There is no IC way to tell me what your Dex bonus is and whether my Cat's Grace bonus is better than the bonuses you're already getting. Asking someone to struggle through that IC, doesn't make the game more enjoyable for people, it stresses them out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the abilities don't scale what good are they?

The character will wind up dead or fired (or 'left behind for his own safety' if he can't pull his own weight.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Alternatively, give abilities to a class at 1st level, that you lose if you multi-class. I think someone has already suggested this.
Or....have abilities become locked in after a certain number of levels. For example, once you get to Ranger 2, your Track bonus is permanent. Ranger 4, your 1st Favored Enemy is permanent. If you leave the class before the lock in level, you lose the ability.
That makes no sense. The level is already part of who the character is.

It makes perfect sense. You've dabbled in Ranger, but you haven't spent enough time learning the skills so you lose them. You still get basic things like HD or BAB/Saves/Skill points, but the class abilities atrophy from lack of reinforcement. You want to fight enemies with an advantage? Then it takes four levels to make that a permanent part of your skill set.

The beauty is that you get it from level 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You make it sound like a person who stops taking levels in a class no longer has those levels within him.

That is all sorts of wrong to me.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

If the abilities don't scale what good are they?

The character will wind up dead or fired (or 'left behind for his own safety' if he can't pull his own weight.

The line to walk here is "just as viable without being greater than the sum of its parts". If they approach the cap to scaling abilities carefully, they can make that happen.

If they're too lenient or too harsh with curtailing the scaling, we end up with a situation where either multiclassing is bad, or multiclassing is the only optimal way to play: neither of those options are good.

It should be a sidegrade, in as many respects as possible.


Agreed. I made a statement to this effect upthread.

I wrote:

In an ideal world PF2 would allow unimpeded multiclassing and open selection of abilities available to the additional classes scaling on character level.

They will never be as good at that class as someone who stick with it, but the abilities they took from it will be just as strong as someone who took the class 1-20


Quick straw poll - how many people here believe that multiclassed characters should be intrinsically less powerful than single-classed characters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
Quick straw poll - how many people here believe that multiclassed characters should be intrinsically less powerful than single-classed characters?

Not me. And I'm saying this as someone who always GMs and never gets to play... lol. I just want my players to be able to build the character that fits their vision, and to be able to build cool NPCs without having to "cheat."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Certainly not me, also speaking as a primary GM


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Ok.

I have this concept for a character: I want to play a druid that polymorph into a kung-fu martial artist tiger.

How can I play that concept without multiclassing?

Multi-class all you want. Just don't expect to be as good at druidic things or kung fu as a pure druid or monk with the same character levels.

I said early on that Paizo is not going to put the multi-classing genie back in the bottle.

I don't expect to be better than a focused guy, particularly if they are many levels in and focused, but I want to be competent.

If I want to play a barb or fighter who can throw lightning to make an expy of Thor, I shouldn't suck. There should be ways to get both physical prowess and be able to have a magic ability or so without having to resort to equipment. The more magic I want, the more levels in sorcerer I take, and less in fighter or barb. That's the trade off.

If I'm right, PF2 making level more important for casters on top of the modular classes means I could dip a bit just to get some blasty stuff to weld onto my melee build without having to gestalt or house rule.

That's how it should be. Classes bringing concepts to life, not limiting them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

2 level rogue dip is overpowered now? FFS ive heard everything now.

MC trades power for versatility in PF1. I hope PF2 follows suit.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
I'm not even hiding anything - I'd be happy to divulge my abilities in-character. But passing around character sheets sounds like metagaming for the sake of metagaming.
It's a game. It's not reality. There are aspects of the game that can only be communicated OOC because there is no IC analogy. You aren't killing the game by telling someone OOC that you are 2 Rogue / 3 Monk, or that you have an 18 STR. You really aren't, but to each his/her own.

What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
FaerieGodfather wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I've never had a problem with 1 level dips. What's the issue? It's often just another point of customization, and only in certain cases does it add a disproportionate amount of power.

Well, with the caveat that I don't care what other people do at their tables-- it makes a mockery of the very concept of a class system.

Like a number of 3e "innovations", it turned D&D into a more convoluted version of Rolemaster with less of its flexibility and none of its charm. It's still a great game, but the rotten spots made it so much less than it could have been-- dragging Pathfinder down with it.

dipping was also thr only way to make some concepts work (like the Sword Lord builds who dip MoMS monk) that came about because the PrC was awful, so people put together something worthy of the title Sword Lord.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.

Uh, no. I'm not nerfing multi-classing, I'm giving players a reason to stay pure class from 1-10.

And it has nothing to do with roll playing, i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of people claiming class=/=character when their "character concept" is wholly and totally a function of the class mechanics they can acquire. It isn't about what deity they can worship, what alignment they want, what feats they can choose, or where they want to put their skill points. It's about stealing class abilities without having to commit to the class.

It's amazing how these class concepts never involve class abilities only given out at level 10+...lol.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, it's about realizing a character concept.

Why is it so foreign to you to think that a player might imagine a character, then reference the rules to see how to produce that character?

I don't play Pathfinder or D&D to play a class, I roleplay and use Pathfinder or D&D to as a solution to conflict resolution. Much like the mechanics are the engine that drives a character's capabilities, they're the engine that defines probability in the world.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On the other side of the coin, why is it so wrong to see an ability that you would like your character to have, and then craft a character you want to play that has that ability [whether or not that ability comes from the primary class that character takes most levels in]?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.

Uh, no. I'm not nerfing multi-classing, I'm giving players a reason to stay pure class from 1-10.

And it has nothing to do with roll playing, i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of people claiming class=/=character when their "character concept" is wholly and totally a function of the class mechanics they can acquire. It isn't about what deity they can worship, what alignment they want, what feats they can choose, or where they want to put their skill points. It's about stealing class abilities without having to commit to the class.

It's amazing how these class concepts never involve class abilities only given out at level 10+...lol.

givem how few games get to lvl 10, not really, you nay have a plan for then, but probably not, for the one time every few years you get to 10, it's not worth planning for.


Planpanther wrote:

2 level rogue dip is overpowered now? FFS ive heard everything now.

MC trades power for versatility in PF1. I hope PF2 follows suit.

Honestly, I think Evasion is a little broken. I never liked the idea of being able to completely dodge a hand grenade in a phone booth because you are really good at dodging stuff.

But no, 2 levels in rogue isn't broken, in and of itself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thflame wrote:
Planpanther wrote:

2 level rogue dip is overpowered now? FFS ive heard everything now.

MC trades power for versatility in PF1. I hope PF2 follows suit.

Honestly, I think Evasion is a little broken. I never liked the idea of being able to completely dodge a hand grenade in a phone booth because you are really good at dodging stuff.

I do!

But it does feel inappropriate for level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:


What I find really odd, is that for someone who is so bent up about nerfing multiclassing because it’s “roll-playing,” you seem to have a very gamist approach to RPGs.

Uh, no. I'm not nerfing multi-classing, I'm giving players a reason to stay pure class from 1-10.

And it has nothing to do with roll playing, i'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of people claiming class=/=character when their "character concept" is wholly and totally a function of the class mechanics they can acquire. It isn't about what deity they can worship, what alignment they want, what feats they can choose, or where they want to put their skill points. It's about stealing class abilities without having to commit to the class.

It's amazing how these class concepts never involve class abilities only given out at level 10+...lol.

Have you seen players stay single class 1-10? How many of them? Why did they do that?

BTW, Class=/= Character. My character is "a young, daredevil man who loves to romance women, and is quick to duel men, always dangerous with a rapier in his hand". That's my character. Now I ask you. What class is him? Is he a rogue? A fighter? a swashbuckler? a cavalier? a bard? magus maybe? urban ranger? multiclass of several of those?

201 to 250 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Stop the 1 Level Class Dip All Messageboards