|
I have a hang-up when it comes to playing multiclassed characters, especially ones where the multiclass is a dip for something like weapon proficiencies. Unless I'm in a game that has Prestige Classes, where multiclassing is the price of entry (both to take the class and often to meet its prerequisites as well), multiclassing feels "wrong" somehow. It isn't so bad if you're dividing the multiclass relatively evenly between a pair of classes, but most multiclassing I see seems to consist of dipping, just taking 1 level of the most combat-oriented class, either as your first or second level, and then moving as if that isn't a huge narrative whiplash, like "I labored and studied in a dank tower for decades to learn how to cast the magic missile I've been using. Now after a few weeks of fighting goblins I'm suddenly as trained and proficient as our warrior in swords and armor, and now I'm just going to go back to casting magic like nothing's happened."
Plus, it feels like a lot more games these days are written to encourage you NOT to multiclass, with abilities that scale as time goes by and shiny capstone abilities at 20th level. I get that the average campaign rarely, if ever, reaches that level of play and when they do, the capstone rarely sees much use beyond maybe the last few battles of the campaign and perhaps a nod in the roleplaying epilogue if it had some narrative value like "your character stops aging" or whatnot. But for classes that get those kinds of benefits, it feels really jarring, like you're giving up ultimate enlightenment, ostensibly the goal your character was striving for, oart of the reaso why they ARE that class in the first place, for some extra fighting "oomph" early on.
Most players and GMs just sort of accept this and gloss over those implications, but of late they've been really really bothering me, prompting me to come up with complicated builds and strategies JUST so the character doesn't have to multiclass, and I feel like something's wrong with ME that I can't just dip like a normal player. How do I get over this hang-up and stop feeling guilty for doing something that rationally is no big deal?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for sacrificing that 20th-level capstone ability for more versatility at lower levels, there's at least two reasons a player can justifiably not worry about it.
1) Out-of-game: If you know as a player that the campaign is going to conclude (or just stall out) well before your character reaches 20th level, then there's no reason to make decisions now about how things are going to shake out at the highest levels of play: You know you're never going to get there, so sacrificing options then to get benefits now is a smarter choice.
2) In-game: Does your character know what powers they could potentially attain? Even if they do, are they actively working toward claiming that power? If the answer to the second question is "no," then there's no reason to worry about sacrificing that option, because the character isn't aware of/concerned about it.
[I've mostly moved to RPGs that are skill-based rather than class/level-based, so these questions are no longer on my mind at all these days...]
|
I love dipping. I think it allows you to construct interesting character packages that straight classing doesn't. I dont get too hung up on how my character got the classes. I mean, half the APs happen in like 90 days so why worry? I prefer to look at it as classes are "under the hood" the mechanics of my character. In game, folks only see the hood scoop, spoiler, and fancy paintjob. vroom vroom!
PF2 pretty much killed dipping dead though, so you don't have to worry there. They made damn sure you don't have to worry...
TL;DR Separate your mechanics from your creative elements. PF2 solved this for you, I guess.
|
|
Yes, 2e Pathfinder DID fix this, but I'm mostly thinking in the context of Starfinder, my current hyperfixation of choice.
Virtually EVERY class in that game except Soldier can be improved by dipping a level of Soldier (specifically the Blitz style). Even when there's archetypes like Spell Sergeant that add more combat focus to the caster classes, it'll STILL be recommended to do a 1 level multiclass into Blitz Soldier.
I've only played Starfinder four or five times, so your references went completely over my head. (It's not really my cup of tea.)
That said, I'm with Pan: Your character doesn't know anything about the mechanical underpinnings of their abilities, so you shouldn't either.
As long as you can make narrative sense of where your character learned to do what they can do, you should be set.
("Wow, when those goblins got close I couldn't get a spell off and they kicked my ass! Hey, Fighter, would you give me some hand-to-hand combat lessons?")
Pretty much anything except your 1st level in a spellcasting class can pass for organic learning in world. You decide that you need to learn something other than the natural progression that you have been following and then do so.
And a creative player can easily come up with ways to make that 1st spellcasting level not seem too jarring a development.
If I know that I'm dipping ahead of time, my head canon is that my character has been studying both disciplines pre-1st level the entire time. In the OP's example, I could say that the character grew up with a parent that taught them the fundamentals of weapon and armor training, but then my PC opted to study the arcane arts. But now, after adventuring in the field a bit, the character is realizing that some of their parent's training could be a useful supplement to their skills as they work to expand their arcane knowledge.
On a smaller scale, this type of retroactive history happens all the time in RPG games. It doesn't work in all multi-class situations, but this sort of thing really only needs to be justified internally. A PC's "lore" isn't always going to match up with the mechanics, and most Pathfinder players accept that as part of the game (if they even consider it).
Most of my PFS1 characters (and all of my SFS characters, so far) have been single-classed, largely because their concepts could be adequately handled within the one class (with or without an archetype), and because I dislike delaying improvements to the main class's schtick (especially with spellcasters). When I do, I usually try to have some sort of in-character justification, because that helps make such changes less jarring:
* My first PFS character, a rogue, dipped a level of cleric at one point, which bolstered his lower saves and gave him some easier access to healing magic. But he had always been a devotee of that faith, even taking the god's religion trait at 1st level, so he viewed that service as his way of thanking Cayden for surviving those early levels. (Once he hit Seeker, he retrained that one level to rogue, because that made him a more effective Caydenite than a tiny bit of healing and spellcasting that had become woefully underwhelming for his total level.)
* I have a high-level ranger who has taken a handful of fighter levels along the way to give him more feats (including heavy armor proficiency without spending a feat), and to allow him to take some of those feats as soon as he qualified rather than waiting for his next level-based feat (the most recent one being Greater Vital Strike at 16th). The transitions between classes have been largely seamless in actual play--they're both martials, so he's just focusing more on weapon skills than nature skills at certain levels.
*I have a low-level hunter who will be multiclassing into u-rogue for a few levels to maximize the effectiveness of her Dex-based build and flanking with her companion. But I planned to do that from the start, and she's taken Boon Companion so her buddy won't lose out for those u-rogue levels.
Way back when 3.0 was new I had a wizard who play established as slightly more religious than the party cleric. Eventually I decided that being able to use healing items and an occasional Cure Light Wounds would be useful. A level of cleric did not, in my view, fit with the way the character was developing from a narrative point of view so I took a level of Adept instead which seemed to me to fit better with a lay person of faith who was favoured by Pelor (in this instance), especially since by that point we were in an extended wilderness adventure far from organised temples and our PCs rarely get extended downtime.
I can hear one or two people howling in anguish that that is a less powerful NPC class so not only was I sacrificing a level of Wizard, I was getting an underpowered level in its place. However, it fit the evolving character and frankly I'm not good enough with the rules to make optimal use of character abilities anyway. It was a home game and probably better for roleplaying than any since.
My most recent character (pre-pandemic we were still playing 3.0) had a first level as Aristocrat and all subsequent as Ranger due to being driven from home by marauding giants. That was purely background, not mechanical at all.
It depends on the game. If you're in a game where druids are a semi-hereditary caste of Celtic priests, and monks are from a far off non-Celtic land then a druid/monk is inappropriate. If your game has druids as mages drawing power from nature vs. monks as mages of the body then a druid/monk is just fine.
I don't know everything about Starfinder but a little military experience (a soldier level) making your character more like what you want seems just fine to me.
A capstone which you can reach only after the game has stopped working is as close to insignificant as anything I can imagine. If Starfinder still works well at level 20 then losing the ability to (checks) use an improvisation without spending a resolve point as an envoy, or to craft items in minutes as a mechanic, still doesn't seem like you're losing a character-defining trick for those final battles or the epilogue.
|
|
Right, but what if it's something the character ostensibly took the class for?
Like, the Enlightenment capstone for the mystic makes you stop aging and keeps you from dying of old age. If I'm playing a living elebrian who wants to hack her own DNA so she avoids having to become undead like most people on Eox, her home planet, acheiving true living immortality seems like the ultimate middle finger to the Eoxian status quo.
But to GET there, you can't dip, so if I ALSO want her to be able to use a cool melee weapon, I'm going to have to dump a whole lot of precious feats for proficiencies like Advanced Melee Weapons and Heavy Armor, as well as Toughness and stuff, and if I were to ask for advice building such a character, people in the Advice forum are going to say "just take a level of Blitz Soldier, it'll give you everything you need and more." That isn't helpful!
|
|
Dems da breaks of a class system. You need to work with what's available. I've been busting my head trying to figure out how to make a Lion's Blade prestige character work because I love the flavor. It means this character isn't going to be optimal in most settings and campaigns. To me its worth figuring out because that's what I want to play, even if it doesn't align with what build guides and internets say.
Right, but what if it's something the character ostensibly took the class for?
Like, the Enlightenment capstone for the mystic makes you stop aging and keeps you from dying of old age. If I'm playing a living elebrian who wants to hack her own DNA so she avoids having to become undead like most people on Eox, her home planet, acheiving true living immortality seems like the ultimate middle finger to the Eoxian status quo.
But to GET there, you can't dip, so if I ALSO want her to be able to use a cool melee weapon, I'm going to have to dump a whole lot of precious feats for proficiencies like Advanced Melee Weapons and Heavy Armor, as well as Toughness and stuff, and if I were to ask for advice building such a character, people in the Advice forum are going to say "just take a level of Blitz Soldier, it'll give you everything you need and more." That isn't helpful!
This is one of the ways in which RPG characters can seem very strange. A real person who wanted to live forever would probably avoid hand-to-hand combat (or violence in general) like the plague.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but what if it's something the character ostensibly took the class for?
Like, the Enlightenment capstone for the mystic makes you stop aging and keeps you from dying of old age. If I'm playing a living elebrian who wants to hack her own DNA so she avoids having to become undead like most people on Eox, her home planet, acheiving true living immortality seems like the ultimate middle finger to the Eoxian status quo.
But to GET there, you can't dip, so if I ALSO want her to be able to use a cool melee weapon, I'm going to have to dump a whole lot of precious feats for proficiencies like Advanced Melee Weapons and Heavy Armor, as well as Toughness and stuff, and if I were to ask for advice building such a character, people in the Advice forum are going to say "just take a level of Blitz Soldier, it'll give you everything you need and more." That isn't helpful!
It may not be as "optimal," but you could go with a Geneturge mystic as well as one of the spell sergeant, star knight, or Steward's stalwart archetypes, instead of dipping soldier. You could also/instead take the Solar Connection epiphany to just manifest a "cool melee weapon" (since the Solar Weapon class feature explicitly states: "Your solar weapon functions as a one-handed kinetic advanced melee weapon with an item level equal to your solarian level, and you’re automatically proficient with it." [emphasis mine]), although you will need Versatile Specialization at some point. Or skip the melee weapon and go with the Wrecking Fists epiphany (which may be more thematic for a Geneturge).
If it's about a capstone of immortality which you won't reach or need in-game but which you want in order to finish her story after the game, then imagine a 21st level for her. Or retraining; that neither exists in Starfinder shouldn't prevent one or the other existing in what amounts to fanfic. Or maybe she won't ever achieve this (being that little bit impure) but she will lay the groundwork for one to come who will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but what if it's something the character ostensibly took the class for?
Like, the Enlightenment capstone for the mystic makes you stop aging and keeps you from dying of old age. If I'm playing a living elebrian who wants to hack her own DNA so she avoids having to become undead like most people on Eox, her home planet, acheiving true living immortality seems like the ultimate middle finger to the Eoxian status quo.
But to GET there, you can't dip, so if I ALSO want her to be able to use a cool melee weapon, I'm going to have to dump a whole lot of precious feats for proficiencies like Advanced Melee Weapons and Heavy Armor, as well as Toughness and stuff, and if I were to ask for advice building such a character, people in the Advice forum are going to say "just take a level of Blitz Soldier, it'll give you everything you need and more." That isn't helpful!
If that's the case, it sounds like the game system can't really provide the character you want to play.
Not every game system can accommodate every character concept.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I give everyone their capstone ability right before the final adventure. One or two levels in another class don't affect this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I give everyone their capstone ability right before the final adventure. One or two levels in another class don't affect this.Thats a cool GM move right there.
I got the idea from James Jacobs himself, I think he does something similar in his home games if they don't get up to 20th level.
I tried it for our Jade Regent and then our Iron Gods games and it was a rousing success.