Stop the 1 Level Class Dip


Prerelease Discussion

251 to 300 of 467 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Let me present two examples of heavily multiclassed characters I have used in the past. Please explain to me how the existence of these characters supposedly harms the game.

3.5: Sheylin the young runaway circus acrobat turned adventurer. She has a playful, upright spirit and is a bit of a thrill seeker. Along the way she picks up the scimitar and begins a long journey of exploration and self actualization with newfound companions who gradually grow to be cherished friends.

Monk 2 (became Chaotic after completing the monk levels) / Swashbuckler 3 / Duskblade 1/ Pious Templar 2 / Arcane Duelist 2/ Dervish 3 / Duelist 7

3P: Tsuneh' a massive, taciturn Tiefling mercenary, the mammoth of a man slings a sword even larger than he is as he goes on missions for his Adventurer's guild, earning his pay as he seeks to learn more of who he truly is, what his heritage really means and who is the greater power that seems to have granted him a few blessings amongst the many extreme hardships in his life. [I do not recall the exact levels and the campaign started at 8 so I don't recall the exact order of classes]

Fighter / Gladiator / Soul Knife / Cleric / Ranger / Psychic Warrior / Warblade


kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

Well Evasion is not level 2 in PF2 anymore, thank Dog. Seems like the earliest you can get it is level 5-7 with Master Reflex, with level 13-15 likely being the earliest you can get Improved Evasion with Legendary Reflex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Evasion, or at least, the fact you can ignore a grenade inside a telephone booth, is lvl 1 now, and not class especific. If we correctly read between lines, it's what happens when you pass your ref save by 10+. Master reflex what does is make you to treat normal success as critical sucess in ref saves.


Fuzzypaws wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

Well Evasion is not level 2 in PF2 anymore, thank Dog. Seems like the earliest you can get it is level 5-7 with Master Reflex, with level 13-15 likely being the earliest you can get Improved Evasion with Legendary Reflex.

To clarify, so I don't sound like NO-BAD-FUN guy, I'm okay with a Reflex save preventing all damage from an AoE, I just think part of that action should be a move action to get out of the AoE, or to get to a place where you have partial cover.

I have heard of an assassin character that would sneak into people's homes with a necklace of fireballs, stomp the necklace, and take no damage because they make all the saves. That's kinda dumb.

With the new Legendary Skills, I could totally see someone phasing through harmful effects for less damage, though.


1 person 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.

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.

Depending on the Stranger, you've annoyed them or giving them way to many numbers. Or maybe you might be annoyed if you look at their character and see "Oh dear this is bad/minmax". This isn't a what I'm saying you actually are, I have no idea your own reactions when you look at other sheets/numbers.

Given that I keep playing with friends, I really don't see the need to know their details unless a skill/spell is involved(Bob you have Nature knowledge right?). Mind you I ask OOC or sometimes bring up info in game(Character: Um guys, I know you have this plan to do this, but I do have an Invisibility potion ready so maybe we can use it in some way?)

I don't ask for details of someone's sheet or build unless it interests me. Like someone that made Swashbuckler/Alchemist and just played battlefield control(Smoke bombs at X point, stand at key spot and prepare to Parry and Riposte anything. It seemed pretty good in a few battles but never got around to asking about it before the game died. And I usually share info that is important or helps the team when it comes up(Hey guys my familiar can help you out with this.)


I had a few experiences with dip.

- A Barbarian took a Bard level to represents the fact that he was trying to educate himself and learn court manners. It was good.

- A friend dipped in Swashbuckler Inspired Blade to have DEX to dammage in an easy way. It was only mechanical, it felt bad and DEX to dammage should be a thing to avoid that.

- I dipped to do the Ragechymist Barbarian in heavy armor with three arms and shield and broke my friend’s game. I was an *** and it was bad. The worst part is that RP wise it was fine.

- I saw a Druid Monk Octopus Grapple once. Not respect at all for Druid or Monk backgrounds, the goal was’ just to make a stupid maximize grappler. It was far too powerful, and felt really immersion breaking.

Dip should not be viable unless you take like 4-5 levels in the multiclassing. It break immersion and allows stupid builds.


thflame wrote:
Fuzzypaws wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
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.

Well Evasion is not level 2 in PF2 anymore, thank Dog. Seems like the earliest you can get it is level 5-7 with Master Reflex, with level 13-15 likely being the earliest you can get Improved Evasion with Legendary Reflex.

To clarify, so I don't sound like NO-BAD-FUN guy, I'm okay with a Reflex save preventing all damage from an AoE, I just think part of that action should be a move action to get out of the AoE, or to get to a place where you have partial cover.

I have heard of an assassin character that would sneak into people's homes with a necklace of fireballs, stomp the necklace, and take no damage because they make all the saves. That's kinda dumb.

With the new Legendary Skills, I could totally see someone phasing through harmful effects for less damage, though.

I'm fine with it as a Master Proficiency effect.

As a simple critical success though... I guess it represents being in a lucky deadspot in the blast radius? Feels a bit strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
No, it's about realizing a character concept.

A "character concept" based purely on class mechanics isn't a character concept, it's a build concept.

That's what is so ironic about everyone else who keeps spouting class=/=character and then tells me that the need to multi-class to achieve the concept. Do you not see it? You're telling me that class=/=character, but somehow build=character.

Guess what, it's the same mindset. Exactly the same. The only difference is its a class you've designed. So while trying to convince yourself that you're class abilities shouldn't define who you are, that's exactly what you keep telling me when you insist you need to multi-class to achieve your "character concept."

Quote:
I don't play Pathfinder or D&D to play a class

And yet your need to muli-class proves thats exactly what you're doing, only because it's a class you designed, you're pretending it's something different. It's not.

And that's fine, on its face, because its just proving my point, that your class is who you are, whether you designed it or someone else did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the chance I've misunderstood you and you are taking this seriously, I'm going to repeat myself one more time.

Classes are packages of abilities. Characters are fictional entities with personalities, histories, goals and identity.

The character has the abilities appropriate to their story. Classes and feats and skills are collected to power the character's abilities.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Classes are packages of abilities.

No, they are not. Class represent a fundamental/core facet of the character. It provides a starting point and a reference frame for how that character approaches problems and how the world will respond to the character. The same personality trained as a Fighter or Ranger or Wizard or Sorcerer should feel different, should play different. Every single post of yours trying to defend multi-classing simply confirms this is what's at work.

You're trying to to justify level dipping for mechanical benefit as some higher calling. It's BS. You're hunting mechanics because that's how the game works. You're not fooling anyone even if you're fooling yourself. You want the mechanics you want and it has nothing to do with "story," because players identify with what they can do.

The problem with level dipping in PF is the same problem that undoubtedly occurs in all games that allow it: It's exploitable and detrimental at the same time. Either players identify all the convergences and make builds that trivialize the game, exactly as Steelguts relates, or people stumble into design traps and make builds that can barely survive (in PFS). On forums you find way more of the former since most people who need to talk about builds are min/maxing, and people who are truly building for the roleplay don't need advice on it.

My message is the same: PFS 2e needs to bring the pure class back into the forefront. It needs to be a desirable option from 1-10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm for creating a character according to my vision.

You're just restricting people's creativity and calling it some higher calling.


As a note to your statement of my 'trying to justify level dipping for mechanical benefit' it's sure as hell not my mechanical benefit.

It's been more than five years since the last time I was in the player seat.

I justify creating characters.

Have fun with your bland classes and stale old tropes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Classes are packages of abilities.
No, they are not. Class represent a fundamental/core facet of the character. It provides a starting point and a reference frame for how that character approaches problems and how the world will respond to the character.

Class can represent...it doesn't have too. You are imposing limits that don't and arguably shouldn't exist. You are imposing an artificial restriction that can limit creativity.

IMO.


dragonhunterq wrote:

Class can represent...it doesn't have too. You are imposing limits that don't and arguably shouldn't exist. You are imposing an artificial restriction that can limit creativity.

IMO.

I'm not imposing anything. I'm pointing out that anyone who says their class is not their character but then insist they need to multi-class to make their concept is contradicting themselves.

If class=/=character, then you can roleplay your character with any class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll also defend it mechanically, bonus points if it fits the character.

As an Alchemist in my last game I kept getting into fights due to how the areas were set up. And no one was a pure "Fighter" or had high AC. Now I could have just rebuilt or retired my character. But I figured that picking up Fighter for it's Armor proficiency and maybe Unbreakable for bonus feats. That'd help me suddenly gain some AC and a bit of toughness to help with fights so I don't have to always have my Mutagen on. And given the last couple fights I had to be Mutagen Tank, well either multiclass or pop feats.

But this still fit the character as part of him was "World's beaten me down but I'm not broken yet". Other possible ideas would probably be Rogue, maybe Hunter or slayer.

Know what doesn't fit the whole theme of the character? Yeah I wouldn't slice in Monk or Paladin. Or even Barbarian. Sure those might actually be better choices math wise but it goes way off track of the character I'm working OFF of, not looking to make.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Have fun with your bland classes and stale old tropes.

Yeah, I can't imagine a game like that ever succeeding.


959, I posted some characters I've made back on Page 3, first post. Can you tell me how I'm powergaming/minmaxing/whatever you wanna call it? Because I would Love to know your opinion of my characters. (Btw, that Bloodrager/Shaman has more levels of Bloodrager than Shaman, the Monk/Brawler actually has close levels on the two classes, and the other two only have 4 levels in rogue and fighter respectively).

I multiclass because it fits my concept, and I like to Multiclass, just to multiclass not caring about the ramifications. Take for example my Bloodrager/Shaman. She was planned from the start to be a Bloodrider, because mounted Barbarian was part of her concept, the other part was the Mammoth Spirit, a personal totem through which she was granted power from the mighty beasts which she so admired, felt so close to, and was enthralled by. In fact this is the very reason she was a Half Orc to begin with. Could I have made her a Mounted Fury Barbarian instead? Sure, but I made her around the time that Advanced Class Origins had just come out, and the Bloodrager was hype.

Personally I don't build to be min/maxed or power gamed, I build purely because I have a cool concept come to mind, I have literally crossed Witch and Arcanist on a Changeling, just because it felt fun (never played her, because she is very unoptimized, but still the point stands, I statted her to 20). I do agree with you that the character Has to be built around the classes, because without a class there really can be no character in this system, so the character does indeed =class, by necessity. But, that doesn't mean that they can't also be defined by another class as well.

I'm also not one for just dipping I always go at least 4-5 levels into a class, because I want to appreciate the class for what the class is, and not just the parts its made of. Take for example my Hunter/Fighter, I took the fighter levels to make my Familiar as competent as my Animal Companion at teamwork. But I had already planned to get the Familiar from Level 1 and got her from Outside the Fighter class. Keira's concept was that she was a Scaleheart Beast Master who felt akin to and fought at the side of her beasties (in this case a Croc Animal Companion(who she was raised with in the Swamp by a Deinosuchus mother who saved her life and took her in), and a Caiman Familiar (who she found along the way and saved the life of, just as she had been saved). She was also made to be a Melee Combatant who didn't really care about her spells (due to it not being a part of her initial concept) but used them when she thought it prudent, like saving a downed companion by using Hydraulic Push on an opponent who was closing in. Fighter very much fit for her because she was a frontliner, who with the help of her animals was able to control zones, and beat in faces w/ her great club(which was shaped like a Croc head x3), it allowed her to be better at that. Eldritch Guardian (which is class flavor of its own, separate from its parent class) allowed her Familiar Jade to work more regimentally with her and Ruby. I prolly would have taken more fighter levels too, if it hadn't been for Boon Companion allowing for only 4 levels in another class.

This is how I like to play, why are you telling me its wrongmcbadfun? Just because other people like to take tiny dips into other classes so that they're not really competent? Just because you have this outdated conception that goes back to AD&D?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What's wrong with dipping for mechanical benefits? It's not always about min/maxing, it's building a PC that will survive to be played further. Should all Dex-based melee characters only be Unchained Rogues? Should all strength builds be only Fighters or Barbarians?

I wanted to build an Indiana Jones type character, but I didn't want to use a human as I already had a lot of human characters. So I made an Archaeologist Bard Gnome that uses a whip to Disarm and Trip. That takes a lot of feats to be viable at all. But my character won't always be able to do either maneuver and using more than one feat to get dex-to-damage would eat up too much space. And making her strength based just didn't fit my idea of her. So my little bard took a starting level in Inspired Blade. It wasn't about min/maxing. It was only about keeping my bard ALIVE.


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


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."

In my experience that approach is always followed by the person who wants to see my build telling me what I should do and how I should play my character, because they have a preconceived notion of how a <insert whatever I am playing> should react to the situation. I've even had a couple of cases of people telling the GM what they think my action should be because they know OOC the 'optimal' thing to do.

So I am inherently suspicious of strangers who want to know the mechanics of a character rather than the personality and roleplay.


The really funny thing about this whole conversation is I don't even allow 'multiclassing' in my own campaigns...

... but I've boiled all characters down into Heroes [Martial with no or low magic], Mages [Full Casters] and Dabblers [somewhere inbetween]

The thing is, every level I work with my players to customize the advancement for their next level. Help each of them obtain the abilities their characters would naturally obtain when transcending their current level.

I've had things as crazy as a Hero Wizard who spent all of their level abilities cultivating higher magic than is standard of a Hero [so sort of a classical Fighter//Mage with high health who can either martial decently without special abilities or magic but not do both together (except using magic to support his martialing, buff spells and such)] or a Shifter Mage on the Mage Chassis who used at-will shapeshifting magic similar to a 3.5 Warlock to gain temporary hp and go to town in melee without access to classical spells.


I think you've made that post before, Kyrt.


He's deleted and remade it a few times so that it was at the bottom >.>


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


Guess what, it's the same mindset. Exactly the same. The only difference is its a class you've designed

Exactly.

Because the concept I want to play might not exist as a class that Paizo has designed, or even as a class that Paizo will ever design. But can be properly represented by a combination of classes.

For example, Conan is better represented with levels in barbarian, rogue, a pirate archetype and fighter. There is no class that represent Conan by itself.

Sometimes, Paizo add an archetype that helps. For example, fighter archetype Viking helps to play the viking trope. But until then, a fighter with some levels of barbarian works well.

The classes are just arbitrary game frames, needed to contain rules. You should never start (or finish) your character concept by the class.

Whenever I ask someone "what are you going to play", if they answer me "a bard", or "a fighter", I fell sorry for them. The answer should be something like "an archeologist who loves Osirion and uncovering hidden treasures" or "a grizzled war veteran who served as a Caravan Guard until he was disgraced because he felt asleep and now feels sorry for that". Then you can think if you are going to fit that with an archeologist bard, or cryptbreaker alchemist, or a rogue, and your caravan guard can be a fighter, a ranger, a slayer, or a brawler.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Saldiven wrote:

Back in 3.0/3.5, the way this was discouraged was with the exp penalty. It made single level dipping and having more than two classes far more difficult.

...

Should that be brought back?

Wait! I know the answer to this one.

No.


Its interesting that I see evasion as one of the very few Rogue abilities that lets them survive a caster. Even then, its usually all coming up caster. With all the talk about martials not having nice things, im a little surprised folks think level 2 evasion is too much. Is it also too much for the monk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Its interesting that I see evasion as one of the very few Rogue abilities that lets them survive a caster. Even then, its usually all coming up caster. With all the talk about martials not having nice things, im a little surprised folks think level 2 evasion is too much. Is it also too much for the monk?

Casters, as bad as they get later, don't have their really awful stuff that early. All that getting Evasion, Mettle or whatever as early as level 2 does is shut down fun monsters and cause arguments like this about multiclassing. Level 5-7 for first stage Evasion etc, which in PF2 will be represented as a successful save being automatically upgraded to critical success, sounds about right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This dip action actually gives value to the rogue class surprised folks want to erase even that. I guess I am less concerned about PC defensive abilities. Typically, the save is still too low to be "shut down" territory until later levels, IME.


I will note when I said level 2 feels really early I was referring to character level not rogue level.

If Evasion were the only thing a player wanted out of Rogue I wouldn't care if it only took one level to dip in, get it and direct further growth elsewhere.


Dracala wrote:
This is how I like to play, why are you telling me its wrongmcbadfun? Just because other people like to take tiny dips into other classes so that they're not really competent? Just because you have this outdated conception that goes back to AD&D?

There is no authoritative 'wrongmcbadfun' argument. When someone counters "Well, that's what's fun for me," there is no further discussion. If poking red hot needles in your arm is what's fun for you, then so be it. No on can tell you that you're "wrong." Paizo doesn't really care how you play the game, they only care that you purchase and promote their product in a positive light. They've never required anyone to follow their rules, unless we're talking about PFS, which we are not.

My perspective is that the game lost something on the way to multi-classing, something fundamental. I'm reinforced in this believe by all you people who insist you can't create your character concept without multi-classing. That tells me, unequivocally, that the mechanics are what drive the sense of character. I am of the firm believe that if the pure class mechanics were stronger and more compelling, suddenly people will find that they do want to play a fighter, a ranger, or rogue, from 1-10, if not 1-20. Call it a hunch.

Heather 540 wrote:
What's wrong with dipping for mechanical benefits?

On the surface, there's nothing wrong with dipping for mechanics. Recognizing that's what's really going on is an important step to addressing the problems. Both WotC and Paizo designed classes obviously consider this. It is for certain that when 3.5 unfettered multi-classing, they knew players would be doing it for mechanical reasons. However, I'll repeat what I said before, the very existence of a "capstone" mechanic which exists at the last level of each class represents an undeniable belief that going pure from 1-20 should be more powerful than not doing so. The capstone ability is suppose to represent the culmination of a life-long pursuit in a specific discipline and the reward is far beyond any purchasable feat. What's more, even a single level of multi-classing denies a character any and all access to capstones.

The problem is how multi-classing was implemented undermined the value in pure-classing. I'm hardly the first person to make this observation in this thread, and this thread is hardly the first time this fact has been brought up. I'd like to point out to Paizo that they've spent time and energy designing these classes up into the 20's and that effort is undermined by the manner in which pure-classes work in the lower half. The classes need to be redesigned with the recognition that most probably 99% of the games played won't get to 20 and the vast majority of characters probably won't make it past 9.

Paizo should make the classes that fulfill the functional roles, stronger and more compelling, and do so in a way that promotes pure-classing.


gustavo iglesias wrote:


The classes are just arbitrary game frames, needed to contain rules. You should never start (or finish) your character concept by the class.

The classes designed by WotC and Paizo are not arbitrary. They are designed with specific design goals in mind. Fighter archetypes are intended to fulfill the role as a fighter. Wizard archetypes are designed to function as wizards. There are no Ranger Archetypes that are intended to replace Clerics. This is a crucial aspect of designing builds that work competently and responsibly within the game's framework. Certainly over time, roles have been blended e.g. Hunter, Slayer, Skald, Bloodrager, Investigator, etc. And while I'm sure these classes have been welcomed by players, I'm not sure what impact they've had on GMing or traditional encounter/party mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I will defend multiclassing all day long, it's worth noting that I have actually played more characters that did not multiclass than those that did.

Wizards, clerics, druids, bards, a witch, a summoner, a magus, a barbarian, a psychic warrior, a warblade, a paladin...

Now granted, very few of these characters identified with their 'class', but neither did they multiclass.


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


The classes are just arbitrary game frames, needed to contain rules. You should never start (or finish) your character concept by the class.
The classes designed by WotC and Paizo are not arbitrary. They are designed with specific design goals in mind. Fighter archetypes are intended to fulfill the role as a fighter. Wizard archetypes are designed to function as wizards. There are no Ranger Archetypes that are intended to replace Clerics. This is a crucial aspect of designing builds that work competently and responsibly within the game's framework. Certainly over time, roles have been blended e.g. Hunter, Slayer, Skald, Bloodrager, Investigator, etc. And while I'm sure these classes have been welcomed by players, I'm not sure what impact they've had on GMing or traditional encounter/party mechanics.

Roles roles roles.

Where is the individual in your gaming philosophy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If folks feel classes are too narrow, and MC to diversify abilities, making the restrictive abilities of single classing stronger isnt going to solve that. Just punish folks for wanting to dip.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Either reward creativity with a comparable power level in a different suite of abilities from straight class, or so drastically expand a class's potential as to ensure most concepts can be comparatively serviced by most classes.


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Roles roles roles.

Where is the individual in your gaming philosophy?

It's in the decisions you make as a player, not the modifier of your skill check.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically what you're saying is you want to go back to od&d or possibly AD&D where players don't have the right to build the capabilities of their own characters. Just pick a class and play.

/Thread


Planpanther wrote:
If folks feel classes are too narrow, and MC to diversify abilities, making the restrictive abilities of single classing stronger isnt going to solve that. Just punish folks for wanting to dip.

The game already intends to punish you for dipping, it just was implemented poorly. The very fact that the game has classes that run from 1-20 mandates that there has to be a cost for generalizing. Failing to enforce that condition is exactly why have class dips that end up trivializing the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I'm reinforced in this believe by all you people who insist you can't create your character concept without multi-classing. That tells me, unequivocally, that the mechanics are what drive the sense of character. I am of the firm believe that if the pure class mechanics were stronger and more compelling, suddenly people will find that they do want to play a fighter, a ranger, or rogue, from 1-10, if not 1-20. Call it a hunch.

Don't you see how the game loses richness with this approach?

Your game: The unequivocally strongest classes are pure fighter, pure rogue, pure wizard, and pure cleric. You are allowed to multiclass, but with the knowledge that it will forever weaken your character mechanically. This leaves ~8 viable options for character builds (assuming there are two main paths within each class.)

Our game: Multi-classed characters are equally strong as single-classed characters. This leaves an exponentially huge number of viable builds, far more than any one person could play in a lifetime.

I understand you have strong opinions about the values of distinct roles, but the PF community just doesn't share your mindset on that. I am not sure if you realize it, but you are not convincing anyone...


SteelGuts wrote:

I had a few experiences with dip.

- A Barbarian took a Bard level to represents the fact that he was trying to educate himself and learn court manners. It was good.

- A friend dipped in Swashbuckler Inspired Blade to have DEX to dammage in an easy way. It was only mechanical, it felt bad and DEX to dammage should be a thing to avoid that.

- I dipped to do the Ragechymist Barbarian in heavy armor with three arms and shield and broke my friend’s game. I was an *** and it was bad. The worst part is that RP wise it was fine.

- I saw a Druid Monk Octopus Grapple once. Not respect at all for Druid or Monk backgrounds, the goal was’ just to make a stupid maximize grappler. It was far too powerful, and felt really immersion breaking.

Dip should not be viable unless you take like 4-5 levels in the multiclassing. It break immersion and allows stupid builds.

Three out of four of his dipping anecdotes were detrimental to the game, possibly spoiling PF for several people. A slightly underpowered Bardbarian to avoid this outcome seems like a more than fair trade-off


RumpinRufus wrote:


Don't you see how the game loses richness with this approach?

No, it doesn't lose an iota of richness. All your "story" driven builds are right there for the exploring. It does undermine some of the power gaming mechanics, which is what really drives the majority of level dipping.

Quote:
Your game: The unequivocally strongest classes are pure fighter, pure rogue, pure wizard, and pure cleric.

Multi-classers still have their utility, they still have their character concept. It shouldn't matter that the pure fighter does more DPS, you're not multi-classing for DPS, you're multi-classing for concept, right?

Wait...unless you're character "concept" is you want to do the most DPS? Nah....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:


Don't you see how the game loses richness with this approach?

No, it doesn't lose an iota of richness. All your "story" driven builds are right there for the exploring. It does undermine some of the power gaming mechanics, which is what really drives the majority of level dipping.

Quote:
Your game: The unequivocally strongest classes are pure fighter, pure rogue, pure wizard, and pure cleric.

Multi-classers still have their utility, they still have their character concept. It shouldn't matter that the pure fighter does more DPS, you're not multi-classing for DPS, you're multi-classing for concept, right?

Wait...unless you're character "concept" is you want to do the most DPS? Nah....

The game isn't fun if you're useless in combat.

The game isn't interesting if you can't play your character.

You're offering a choice between (A) single-classing and being effective in combat, while being locked into a certain specific character role vs (B) multi-classing and exploring different character options, and not being relevant in combat. Neither one of those are why I play Pathfinder.

Anyhoo... it doesn't really seem like I'm going to convince you of anything, and it doesn't really seem like anyone else agrees with you, so with that in mind I'm probably going to abandon this thread.


RumpinRufus wrote:


You're offering a choice between (A) single-classing and being effective in combat, while being locked into a certain specific character role vs (B) multi-classing and exploring different character options, and not being relevant in combat. Neither one of those are why I play Pathfinder.

No, you're presenting a false dichotomy. There's a universe of difference between "useful in combat" and having a build that out damages a pure fighter. Just because you are consistently 2nd or 3rd in damage dealt doesn't make you "useless" in combat. Trying to present it as such is disingenuous. The very fact that you'd equate anything but first in place in damage dealt as "useless" is problematic.

I used to play City of Heroes, there was constant b+@~*ing about who did the most damage and the entire argument was summed up by LadyMage, "The game is balanced when my character is the strongest."

It's pretty obvious to those of us on this side of the fence that multi-classers who would be up in arms about losing combat effectiveness aren't about "story" at all. The vast majority of forum discussion on builds is focused on out-performing the standard roles: More damage than a barbarian, better skills than a rogue, better saves than a monk or paladin. It's an arms race cloaked in the "character concept" mantra.


They addressed this to some degree (being slighly cagey about it, since they're planning on releasing blogs about it before the playtest) at a panel at Gary Con 2018 (March 8-11 I believe it was)
Go to 01:22:22 to hear a question about multi-classing and 1 level dipping.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, so much stormwind breaking in here it stinks!


GentleGiant wrote:

They addressed this to some degree (being slighly cagey about it, since they're planning on releasing blogs about it before the playtest) at a panel at Gary Con 2018 (March 8-11 I believe it was)

Go to 01:22:22 to hear a question about multi-classing and 1 level dipping.

Excellent, thank you. Much appreciated.

I listened to the section you highlighted (very helpful). It's clear from the podcast that Jason Buhlman and Stephen Radney-Macfarland recognize that some people are level dipping as an exploit. They seem to associate this with the fact that there are several classes that enable this. They conveyed that they will make an effort to modify the game system to address this. They're fine with people wanting capabilities from other classes, but it sounds like they want to tone down the benefit.

How this plays out is the million dollar question. If either of them is reading this, I would encourage them to approach it from the perspective of making it more advantageous to stay in a class, as oppose to nerfing multi-classing, but this is more about presentation than functionality.

What's also encouraging is that during a different part of the discussion, they clearly acknowledge the concept of functional roles. Jason Bulman specifically makes reference to a party full of multi-classers making the game confusing and unworkable because no one really knows what anyone else is doing. Refreshing to hear that they see the same problems I see.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the way they were talking it sounds to me like their solution might conceptually resemble Variant Multiclassing from Unchained more than it does conventional multiclassing in PF1. So, you pick a primary Class and then a secondary Class that you only get some of the stuff from, but you can't just keep picking bits from different ones.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, or restrictive to concept stuff. Indeed, if done properly, it might make something like Eldritch
Scoundrel just what a standard Rogue/Wizard multiclass looks like. Which would be cool. Or Magus a standard Fighter/Wizard. Or Bloodrager a Barbarian/Sorcerer.

I'm on board with that if done properly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Man, so much stormwind breaking in here it stinks!

See, thats what gets me though. 959 seems like s/he is a Stormwinder, but then literally everything s/he describes about how s/he actually plays the game is super gamist. Like, all they care about is the mechanics of the class, they aren't interested in rolepaying at all. They just want to metagame converse about characters at the table and play their pieces on the board like a chess match.

And I think that is why they don't like multiclassing, because it disrupts their preset notions of what the different chess pieces can do. "What? Bishops can't jump in an L shape, only knights can do that!"

It is a very niche and specific position for a person to take. I've never really seen anyone else who had this exact position.

It's almost like s/he multiclassed...

251 to 300 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