PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] Multiclassing and Dipping: Why the dislike?



Endarire
2010-06-12, 04:57 PM
Power-wise, a Barbarian4 is probably weaker than a Barbarian1/Cleric1/Fighter2, depending on the options. Also, in general, non-casters benefit far more from dipping and multiclassing than casters. The rules allow and sometimes encourage heavy multiclassing to fulfill a concept. (See Complete Adventurer's Fochluran Lyrist.) Despite this, I read of many people- DMs especially- who dislike the notion of dipping.

Do you panic when you see someone heavily dipped, like a different class each level? How does your group feel? What about your DM? How effective were they?

How do you feel when a well-played Wizard, Cleric, Druid, or Artificer comes along with the ability to end or stalemate fights in a spell or two? Do you wonder what prestige class or feat allowed that to happen? Do you accept it as casters being casters? Again, how does your group feel?

From an in-game perspective, an adventurer risks his life on a daily basis, not knowing what perils will befall him. (Smart adventurers stay informed and often pay well for good help.) Mr. Adventurer probably wants to be the best X he can be. Maybe he trained with the Frostrim Giants, the Greenring Druids, and a variety of other organizations to learn their styles. Maybe he learned this through self-study and experimentation; someone must be the first!

Also, classes are groups of related abilities. Someone who sttudies at an academy may earn the title of "Wizard" or "Mage" even as a Sorcerer, Bard, or Wu Jen. A group of nomads may be called "Barbarians," regardless of their class levels. The creepy guy in the woods gets all sorts of titles, even if he's a Commoner. The quickest path to martial greatness is not Fighter20, especially if Tome of Battle or non-core material is allowed.

Is there so much connotation of a class name- "Barbarian," "Witch," "Sorcerer" - that you can think of them as nothing beyond your first impression?

If you reference Y sources, do people feel inadequate or that you're trying too hard?

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 05:03 PM
I completely agree - this bothers me to no end. Seriously.

Classes are a metagame concept, and there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to craft your character - mechanically as well as story-wise - as you like. The system's primary strength - really, it's only strength - is in the breadth of the options and the freedom made by the multiclassing system (sans penalties, since they're retarded). I've made a 20 level character with 20 classes - one level each. And the character had a few distinct themes, was quite cohesive, and even as I did it, you could imagine this character's journey and how he came to gain each of these abilities. It was far from optimal (tons of things burned just qualifying for the 14 PrCs, lots of classes that have features on levels past 1 that would have helped), but it was a very interesting character, I thought.

Basically, this is a particular application of the Stormwind Fallacy that irritates me to no end. I basically won't play with DMs who feel this way, because I just find it stifling.

Mongoose87
2010-06-12, 05:11 PM
Sometimes, especially when designing characters for n00bs, too many classes is a headache. It really depends on how complicated/numerous their features are.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 05:12 PM
Sometimes, especially when designing characters for n00bs, too many classes is a headache. It really depends on how complicated/numerous their features are.
I can understand keeping things under control for a new player, but many DMs equate dipping with cheese and bad roleplaying.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 05:14 PM
As mentioned in the other thread - I dislike it because it promotes pretty uneven growth and results in ugly builds, as well as undermining the flavor that should be associated with several of the PrCs, many of which are supposed to belong to organizations with trademark abilities. 3E, unlike Saga, multiclasses well almost by chance rather than design. I feel like if you're requiring more than 3-4 classes, we should talk and homebrew something instead.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-12, 05:18 PM
I'd rather my players try not to take too many classes, because otherwise it just becomes a lot of different places to check to know what they can do and how. I won't stop them from it, though.

...as long as their build can fit on the "Class Levels" line on their sheets
http://www.chimpout.com/forum/images/smilies/troll.png

Endarire
2010-06-12, 05:25 PM
Of course I can fit my class levels on my sheet! I just print in 6 point font on a very large space.

flabort
2010-06-12, 05:30 PM
And put more than one line within that space. that way the DM doesn't notice I've gestalted in a non-gestalt campain..........

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 05:31 PM
I dislike it because it promotes pretty uneven growth
I have some guesses, but so as not to assume incorrectly, what do you mean by this?


results in ugly builds
In your opinion, which seems largely irrelevant on this issue as you won't be playing the character. I rather disagree with that opinion, in any event.


undermining the flavor that should be associated with several of the PrCs
Fluff is mutable, WotC's is often very bad, most PrCs don't have such restrictive fluff anyway.


many of which are supposed to belong to organizations with trademark abilities.
Quite a few, yes. How many games have you played where any of those organizations actually existed in the setting? I never have, honest to god, seriously, I have never seen a game where the Paragnostic Assembly, the Wayfarer's Guild, etc. actually existed. Excepting those that are defined in the Campaign Setting books (Dragonmarked Houses, the Church of the Silver Flame, etc. for Eberron), none of which fit if you're talking about a class outside of that setting anyway.

And again, fluff ought to be mutable.


3E, unlike Saga, multiclasses well almost by chance rather than design.
Not familiar with the system, can't comment.


I feel like if you're requiring more than 3-4 classes, we should talk and homebrew something instead.
That's a reasonable response, but most DMs are leery of homebrew and that's also quite a bit of extra work on the DM's part. But I will happily accept homebrewing something that roughly fits what the multiclassed character would have gotten, yes.

Raistlin1040
2010-06-12, 05:32 PM
As mentioned in the other thread - I dislike it because it promotes pretty uneven growth and results in ugly builds, as well as undermining the flavor that should be associated with several of the PrCs, many of which are supposed to belong to organizations with trademark abilities. 3E, unlike Saga, multiclasses well almost by chance rather than design. I feel like if you're requiring more than 3-4 classes, we should talk and homebrew something instead.
Not that I disagree with this logic, but it's an interesting way of thinking that I think presents some problems. The cheesier combos are specifically taken because they work well together, to make ridiculous builds. How would you homebrew something that was like, Rogue/Sorcerer/Assassin/Arcane Trickster? That's not an optimized build, of course, but as an example. If you're taking four or more classes and prestige classes, you're going to want a lot of different abilities. Homebrewing seems like it'd sort of jumble everything together.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 05:36 PM
I can understand keeping things under control for a new player, but many DMs equate dipping with cheese and bad roleplaying.

I don't necessarily equate it with role-playing, but rather with a player who is looking for a far more mechanically rigorous game than I usually run. It's essentially a sorting mechanism. You and I would likely clash if we were to play at the same tables long term: saying up front that the game will be mechanically simple and fairly straightforward (and it probably is better to simply sat that) is merely a way for everyone to know what they're getting into.


Not that I disagree with this logic, but it's an interesting way of thinking that I think presents some problems. The cheesier combos are specifically taken because they work well together, to make ridiculous builds. How would you homebrew something that was like, Rogue/Sorcerer/Assassin/Arcane Trickster? That's not an optimized build, of course, but as an example. If you're taking four or more classes and prestige classes, you're going to want a lot of different abilities. Homebrewing seems like it'd sort of jumble everything together.

It looks like the player in question is looking for a magical assassin. Rogue and Sorcerer make good base entry: I would probably just mesh the PrCs. The Sneak Attack progression is more or less the same, so that can stay: for ease of meshing, I'd probably use the odd levels (like Assassin) rather then the even ones (like MTrick). The MTrick off abilities can replace the save/vs poison levels, though I'd probably rearrange them so that Impromptu Sneak Attack doesn't line up with Uncanny Dodge or Hide in Plain Sight (i.e., Ranged Legerdemain on those levels and one other, RSA on the save/vs poison levels only).

I would probably ditch the assassin spells altogether and simply give spell progression (depending on the power level of the campaign, it might get cut to 9/10 or 7/10). Probably not much further unless there's compelling reason. If I did cut at least one level of spells, I would prefer to do it at level 1.

I'd choose the saves/Bab depending on the power level and whether the character was primarily looking at being a gish or being a magical sniper of some kind (and whether, given the table, they needed to be limited in their capacity to do so, or boosted therein).

Tavar
2010-06-12, 05:39 PM
As mentioned in the other thread - I dislike it because it promotes pretty uneven growth and results in ugly builds, as well as undermining the flavor that should be associated with several of the PrCs, many of which are supposed to belong to organizations with trademark abilities.
What do you mean by uneven growth and ugly builds?

And for organization PrC's...it seems to me that most don't belong to any organization. And in any case, I generally dislike tying PrC's to organizations, as it really sets one in the "I'm a X level Wizard", or something. That's supposed to be OOC information, so why should it be tied to IC stuff.

Pluto
2010-06-12, 05:39 PM
Dipping is a symptom of a defective class system.

Classes ideally are able to aptly describe a character's tasks or occupation and provide the character with the tools needed to excel. A Master Swordsman should be effectively portrayed by a Master Swordsman class; that's why there [hypothetically] is a Master Swordsman class - to simply and coherently convey a concept into mechanics that do it justice.

In D&D 3.5, low-optimization groups don't stress the system very hard. The Fighter stands in things' way and hits them with his sword while the Wizard chucks fireballs and the Cleric burns spells to keep the Fighter standing. The classes succeed in their intended purposes and their titles are apt. If, in such a group, a player proposes a character who gains mechanical benefits from dipping a half-dozen classes, it looks like the player has sacrificed a coherent concept for mechanical strength. If the group doesn't experience balance problems in play already, a play for mechanical power looks like a selfish attempt to exploit the system to steal the spotlight from the other players in the group.

I think the stigma comes from the disconnect between how the system works in rules-conscious higher optimization games and how a class system should function (which is more or less how it does work in lower-optimization games).

And, y'know, it's nice to be able to fit all your classes onto that little line. :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 05:42 PM
I have some guesses, but so as not to assume incorrectly, what do you mean by this?

Dead levels where you're weak and strong levels where you're surging ahead. It happens pretty often with some of the trickier builds, and I don't like that; uneven growth is bad enough in a 1 to 20 class without dealing with characters that are dead weight for my other players and then showing them all up at once.


Fluff is mutable, WotC's is often very bad, most PrCs don't have such restrictive fluff anyway.

D&D 3 exists in this uncomfortable spot for me where fluff for things is inescapable in little ways, but people use it as generic. I like to try and preserve fluff niches. The classes aren't named in generic ways, they try to come up with fluff, I try to preserve it to some little extent. No, I would not say someone is not a Barbarian if they show up with Crusader levels instead; but I do still feel like there should be some degree of a fluff distinction there still. "My tribe get strong with anger. But... But more. Me... I anger at... at wrong things! People do wrong things, I must do right things!"


Quite a few, yes. How many games have you played where any of those organizations actually existed in the setting? I never have, honest to god, seriously, I have never seen a game where the Paragnostic Assembly, the Wayfarer's Guild, etc. actually existed. Excepting those that are defined in the Campaign Setting books (Dragonmarked Houses, the Church of the Silver Flame, etc. for Eberron), none of which fit if you're talking about a class outside of that setting anyway.

I have banned PrCs that depend on organizations if the organization doesn't exist. I mean, it's one thing if you're playing an Eldritch Knight; it's another if you want to be a Void Disciple. I like to reach for a higher level of interaction between the mechanics and the fluff.


That's a reasonable response, but most DMs are leery of homebrew and that's also quite a bit of extra work on the DM's part. But I will happily accept homebrewing something that roughly fits what the multiclassed character would have gotten, yes.

It's less work for me than watching a mystic theurge build at mid-low levels without resulting in rules shenanigans. And is the sort of thing I feel a DM should be there for.

Zovc
2010-06-12, 05:43 PM
Rogue/Sorcerer/Assassin/Arcane Trickster? That's not an optimized build, of course, but as an example.

You'd end up with the Spellthief, which sucks (as much as I like the concept).

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 05:48 PM
I'd rather my players try not to take too many classes, because otherwise it just becomes a lot of different places to check to know what they can do and how. I won't stop them from it, though.

...as long as their build can fit on the "Class Levels" line on their sheets
http://www.chimpout.com/forum/images/smilies/troll.png

You do realize that there are base classes with names that won't fit on the line on a Myth-weavers sheet, right? Unarmed Swordsage, for instance. You couldn't take a Prc without being something like "BrbX/FrzbzkrY"

EDIT: As for my personal opinions, I see no problems with dipping. I do see problems with creating characters that are mechanically weak at the level the campaign starts, with the intent of picking up the slack with a full build later, burning feats for pre-reqs before the game starts, because that's... blech. It's no fun to drag around dead weight.

But if a build starts out fine and gains power from dipping, you can easily RP it out. So what if it has a lot of PrCs, you can explain pretty much anything away to fit the fluff, and refluff to taste.

Sometimes, DMs force you to take all levels in PrCs to prevent dipping, but that just hinders options; nobody would take Spellsword because it's crappy for melee and casters, but an OK dip for a caster. Hell, even Fatespinner is almost unattractive for losing one caster level at fifth for a weak capstone.

AslanCross
2010-06-12, 05:51 PM
I don't particularly dislike dipping and multiclassing, as long as they support what the player's character concept is. What I really dislike is when the player just takes a dip in a level just to qualify for a PrC later on. No in-character justification, no personal reasons, just purely mechanical ones.

Since I never play generic D&D, I always allow liberal changes with fluff in PrCs to fit in the setting we primarily play in (Eberron). Thus, the Ordained Champion can work for any religion with a martial bent (thus, in Eberron, an OC can be from the churches of Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, the Mockery, the Silver Flame, Bahamut, or Tiamat).

Raistlin1040
2010-06-12, 05:55 PM
You'd end up with the Spellthief, which sucks (as much as I like the concept).
But even with the Spellthief, you miss out on some of that stuff. I could easily cry "But I wanted Death Attack!" or "But I wanted a familiar!" or something. PrCs are a little cheesy, even though I like them, because they give you a lot of abilities and flexibility that you cannot get with any base class, no matter how cool.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 05:57 PM
Raistlin, that's when I'd ask you which features you were interested in keeping or preserving.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-06-12, 05:59 PM
Dipping is a symptom of a defective class system....

The thread just fails right there.

The strength of DnD is its ABILITY to mix-and-match. Creating classes that do that already would be a nightmare. Also, see my BG post.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-12, 06:01 PM
You do realize that there are base classes with names that won't fit on the line on a Myth-weavers sheet, right? Unarmed Swordsage, for instance. You couldn't take a Prc without being something like "BrbX/FrzbzkrY"

Having been subject to that myself before, I do indeed know that. And that was the joke.

Also, we use physical character sheets, and all of my players are sloppy writers that write in big letters. Some to the point that they can't fit their only base class in the line. :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 06:04 PM
...

The thread just fails right there.

The strength of DnD is its ABILITY to mix-and-match. Creating classes that do that already would be a nightmare. Also, see my BG post.

I would say dipping is a problem in a system where each class was usually meant to be taken to completion as an entire archetype. Technically, if we are going full RAI&W - rules as intended and written, multiclassing in 3.x D&D strongly reflects this - see the favored class system, which places harsh limits on how well you can multiclass. The way people make builds now is a hack rather than a design feature of the original engine. It's served 3.x well, but it was never meant to go that way. And I think it is an issue when your design has to ignore a major conceit of the core system in order to get it to work; that's sloppy game design.

Again: Compare Saga.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 06:05 PM
...

The thread just fails right there.

The strength of DnD is its ABILITY to mix-and-match. Creating classes that do that already would be a nightmare. Also, see my BG post.

I profoundly disagree. I find the strength of D&D to be that D20 is relatively simple and adaptable, and the player base very wide. I don't like mix-and-match, and I do heavily prefer D&D: on the rare occasion I do want mix and match, I play a classless system.


Also, prior post is edited with a rough sketch of a assassin/magical trickster mesh.

Pluto
2010-06-12, 06:11 PM
The strength of DnD is its ABILITY to mix-and-match. Creating classes that do that already would be a nightmare. Also, see my BG post.
The ability to mix and match can be a good thing, but need to mix and match front-loaded classes with redundant concepts to maintain playability is a major flaw.

Merk
2010-06-12, 06:16 PM
The only thing I dislike about multiclassing and dipping is the way base saves can spiral really high, which is easy enough to houserule that you only get the +2 base save once, in your first class or something. Otherwise I see no problem with it, that's the whole fun of thinking of various builds and whatnot. It can also lead to amusing character concepts.

the humanity
2010-06-12, 06:54 PM
making a large build with 2 base classes and 2 prestige classes is a poor move for many groups because it encourages being high creativity and high time consumption outside the main game, which takes a long time. you work all day, you may wanna talk to your wife and hang out instead of taking your books and figuring out every specific about the guy you're gonna pretend you are on your off day. if everyone does maybe one class, its easier for that guy not to become the partys Ringo Starr. thats why its easier. also, complexity is often annoying. there's 'I'm the barbarian!' and there's 'I'm the monk cleric necromancer and next level, I'm going mystic theurge!' which just feels weird on the tongue.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 07:02 PM
there's 'I'm the barbarian!' and there's 'I'm the monk cleric necromancer and next level, I'm going mystic theurge!' which just feels weird on the tongue.
You'd never, ever say that though. You'd say "I'm a Mystic Theurge", or come up with your own title. Or you'd just say your name. Classes are metagame concepts anyway.

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 07:07 PM
I would say dipping is a problem in a system where each class was usually meant to be taken to completion as an entire archetype. Technically, if we are going full RAI&W - rules as intended and written, multiclassing in 3.x D&D strongly reflects this - see the favored class system, which places harsh limits on how well you can multiclass. The way people make builds now is a hack rather than a design feature of the original engine. It's served 3.x well, but it was never meant to go that way. And I think it is an issue when your design has to ignore a major conceit of the core system in order to get it to work; that's sloppy game design.

Again: Compare Saga.

Classes aren't meant to be taken to completion. PrCs exist.

As for multiclassing penalties: WotC is stupid and it was an artifact from older versions of D&D, AFAIK (could be wrong; I've never played them). Yes, D&D is designed sloppily in some areas, but it's still considered great for it's extreme flexibility, and forcing people to just be X20 ruins that; a major reason 4e is less liked, besides the "RUINED FOREVAR" crowd is the fact that it gets balance by making none of the classes really unique or flexible.

Is dipping a problem in and of itself? No. Could it be indicative of a munchkin? Perhaps, but so could anything. Could it just be somebody who roleplays well and enjoys making competent characters? Very much so.

EDIT: To Merk, a good way is just to use the fractional saves and BAB variant; it prevents absurd saves and terrible BAB at the same time.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 07:11 PM
Classes are metagame concepts anyway.

That is not universally true. And that gets to the core of this issue: if you feel classes should represent some game concept (perhaps a reasonable simulacrum for a profession), then massive multiclassing looks remarkably similar to being a dilettante. It grates people the wrong way, much like the fact that Hank Pym is a world renown expert on about 5 thoroughly unrelated disciplines.


Classes aren't meant to be taken to completion. PrCs exist.

Again, I thoroughly disagree. PrCs "are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM." There's a reason they are in the DMG and not the PHB.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 07:13 PM
Classes aren't meant to be taken to completion. PrCs exist.

Compare the 3.0 DMG PrCs to the classes and then tell me that they weren't meant to be taken to completion. So was no one supposed to get 4th level Ranger spells?


As for multiclassing penalties: WotC is stupid and it was an artifact from older versions of D&D, AFAIK (could be wrong; I've never played them). Yes, D&D is designed sloppily in some areas, but it's still considered great for it's extreme flexibility, and forcing people to just be X20 ruins tha

I'll leave your 4E points as a difference of opinion, and again point you to Star Wars Saga, which went off in a different direction with classes that were clearly not intended to be taken to completion, each one actually representing an archetype. Multiclassing in older editions of D&D worked totally differently. You're missing my point - multiclassing heavily is a hack that has made D&D 3E what it is, and if it didn't work, the system would have fallen short. But the multiclassing design we have is not the one the system was intended to use. It's sloppy game design.

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 07:23 PM
Compare the 3.0 DMG PrCs to the classes and then tell me that they weren't meant to be taken to completion. So was no one supposed to get 4th level Ranger spells?

This is a 3.5e discussion, so 3.0 is completely irrelevant.




I'll leave your 4E points as a difference of opinion, and again point you to Star Wars Saga, which went off in a different direction with classes that were clearly not intended to be taken to completion. Multiclassing in older editions of D&D worked totally differently.

I never stated my opinion on 4e, just the common thread; sacrificing the uniqueness of 3.5 for tenative balance by making the classes much less flexible is a reason why many dislike it.


You're missing my point - multiclassing heavily is a hack that has made D&D 3E what it is, and if it didn't work, the system would have fallen short. But the multiclassing design we have is not the one the system was intended to use. It's sloppy game design.

No, it's not. If it makes the game better, why do you care? As for sloppy design: You don't know what the developers intended, so whether or not the way we play is how they wanted it is not capable of being determined.

Anyway, I'm just going to list a bunch of games, video games, and sports that have sloppy design according to your criteria of "not doing things like the devs intended:"

Football (American)
Soccer
Baseball (the reason the Infield fly rule was invented)
Starcraft
WoW
Super Smash Brothers
Street Fighter II (The entire reason combos and cancellable moves exist in fighting games)
Marvel V. Capcom
Halo series
Call of Duty series
Chess

I think I've made my point. If your only argument is that multiclassing isn't how the game was "meant to be played" then you obviously must dislike the metagame of... well, most all games in existence, really, but I just sampled some of the more popular competitive sports and games to point out the fact that all games are based on interactions not intended by those who made the rules.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 07:31 PM
No, your point is pretty badly made considering that in each of those, the hacks were not kept as hacks but instead redesigned as key features. Every single one of those has had innumerable small tweaks added in and made a core part of the game.

Saga is pretty clearly evolved from 3E multiclassing. It's the difference between a hack and a design feature.

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 07:38 PM
No, your point is pretty badly made considering that in each of those, the hacks were not kept as hacks but instead redesigned as key features. Every single one of those has had innumerable small tweaks added in and made a core part of the game.

Saga is pretty clearly evolved from 3E multiclassing. It's the difference between a hack and a design feature.

Err... no.

Examples include G-shotting in Call of Duty MW (not kept in MW 2), many of the glitches from Starcraft that aren't being included in SC2 (including phasing through minerals, though muta stacking is being kept), basically any chess strategy, wavedashing in melee, Jigglypuff being able to instagib with rest in 64 (a major part of her gameplay, not intended by devs, then nerfed), pretty much everything in existence about MvC, and plenty of glitches that have been removed/changed from various versions of SF, BxBing in Halo (I think, that may be a Halo 3 thing) while still being legitimate tactics for the unchanged game, the previously mentioned infield fly rule in baseball which eliminated an emergent tactic, etc.

Furthermore, even if your point was right, and all of the features these games had were supported by the devs (a few were, though plenty weren't), that doesn't change the point I was making: Just because it wasn't intended doesn't mean that it's bad, or in any way worse than the intended features. Clearly, all of these games had unintended features improving them, and calling that sloppy design is doing them a major disservice for no reason other than... I don't know, a feeling that doing things the devs didn't intend is "cheap?" That's the usual reason people dislike emergent gameplay aspects, which is a far more accurate term for what you are describing than "sloppy design."

Basically, here's what my argument boils down to:

Multiclassing may or may not be intended by the developers. There's no evidence, and just because a different system handles multiclassing differently has no effect on D&D.

If multiclassing isn't intended, it can still be a good thing.

Whether or not the developers support unintended features, they can still improve and become major parts of games.

Multiclassing is no different.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 07:43 PM
If these classes were not intended to be taken to level 20, then why do they get capstones? Why do they stop at level 20 instead of level 10? Why are there so goddamned many of them? Why do PrCs not show up in the Player's Handbook, but as an 'optional rule'? It is sloppy game design because it is a trap, a very elaborate trap that varies entirely based on the class that you're looking at.

Where each class is supposed to represent an archetype, it misleads new players and the mediocre fluff gets trampled on just so people can actually achieve an archetype to a reasonable level of performance, by dipping things from here to kingdom come. Not intended, confusing, misleading.

Sloppy game design. I've been saying from the beginning that if it hadn't been implemented into 3.x, then 3.x would have suffered all the more for it, but that speaks more to the terrible basis upon which a very workable system was cludged together than that it was well-designed.

By comparison, one can play Super Smash Brothers Melee without wavedashing and it's not needed to succeed at a reasonable level. Wavedashing only enters in at high level play, and the skills picked up from standard play increase your skills at high level play - this is merely an additional part of your repertoire.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-12, 07:48 PM
If these classes were not intended to be taken to level 20, then why do they get capstones? Why do they stop at level 20 instead of level 10?
Uh... they don't? At least, in the PHB, they didn't. Later, designers realized that they were necessary to make single-classing even a viable option, but originally there really weren't any. The Rogue doesn't even have a 20th level class feature. The Barbarian has Mighty Rage and the Druid has Huge Elemental Wild Shape, but I refuse to accept "5th Favored Enemy" or "Bonus feat #11" or "Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance" as a capstone. And plenty don't even have those.

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 07:51 PM
If these classes were not intended to be taken to level 20, then why do they get capstones? Why do they stop at level 20 instead of level 10? It is sloppy game design because it is a trap, a very elaborate trap that varies entirely based on the class that you're looking at.

They intended people to have a choice... you're making a false dichotomy here. It's not "Everybody has to multiclass" or "Take everything to 20" it's "Multiclass if you want, play all the way if you want."


Where each class is supposed to represent an archetype, it misleads new players and the mediocre fluff gets trampled on just so people can actually achieve an archetype to a reasonable level of performance, by dipping things from here to kingdom come. Not intended, confusing, misleading.

So the game is poorly balanced; we all know that. That's not really relevant to the concept of multiclassing, nor is dipping required to be good; straight *insert spellcaster* and straight *insert ToB melee* are pretty much viable options; there are a few poorly designed PrCs that are straight upgrades with easy entry requirements, but quite a lot at least require you to burn feats, even if it's for more powerful abilities.


Sloppy game design. I've been saying from the beginning that if it hadn't been implemented into 3.x, then 3.x would have suffered all the more for it, but that speaks more to the terrible basis upon which a very workable system was cludged together than that it was well-designed.

Emergent gameplay is still gameplay. If it works, it works. This is the same argument as people who claim certain tactics are "cheap" in video games; they say that since it's not intended, it can't be good. Even if it's unintended, it's good, so what is the problem? D&D 3.5 is about choice and variety, and always has been.


By comparison, one can play Super Smash Brothers Melee without wavedashing and it's not needed to succeed at a reasonable level. Wavedashing only enters in at high level play, and the skills picked up from standard play increase your skills at high level play - this is merely an additional part of your repertoire.

To play at a reasonable level, you don't need wavedashing... but it improves the game. You don't need multiclassing, either. As an aside, playing games against normal people really doesn't improve your ability to play against high level people, at all.

To use a non brawl example, er... everything else I've listed is pretty much required to play at high levels (save G-shotting in CoD, which is essentially a tactic only used by snipers who get attacked at close range). It's part of the game, regardless of whether it was intended or not.

Again, synopsis:

It may or may not be intended, and you are in no position to tell.
If it's not intended, it still improves the game, so there's not a problem.
Even if the devs don't acknowledge it, it still improves the game; they never acknowledged imbalance in D&D 3.5 either.
You're presenting a false dichotomy of rampant crazy dipping or pure single classing with no PrCs; you can easily do both in the same campaign and end up with viable characters. It's more a problem with overpowered PrCs that give too much for too little than it is for people who dip to get abilities they want.

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 07:52 PM
Uh... they don't? At least, in the PHB, they didn't. Later, designers realized that they were necessary to make single-classing even a viable option, but originally there really weren't any. The Rogue doesn't even have a 20th level class feature. The Barbarian has Mighty Rage and the Druid has Huge Elemental Wild Shape, but I refuse to accept "5th Favored Enemy" or "Bonus feat #11" or "Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance" as a capstone. And plenty don't even have those.

I share with you the opinion on Fav. Enemy or Bonus Feat 11, but Perfect Self was clearly intended as a capstone. It's a terrible capstone, and more proof of poor design, but when there aren't even appropriate PrC or multiclass options to maintain several of the concepts that are supposed to be represented by all 11 base classes...

These classes were intended to be taken to 20. By people who were, say it with me, sloppy game designers.



It may or may not be intended, and you are in no position to tell.
If it's not intended, it still improves the game, so there's not a problem.
Even if the devs don't acknowledge it, it still improves the game; they never acknowledged imbalance in D&D 3.5 either.
You're presenting a false dichotomy of rampant crazy dipping or pure single classing with no PrCs; you can easily do both in the same campaign and end up with viable characters. It's more a problem with overpowered PrCs that give too much for too little than it is for people who dip to get abilities they want.

1. It's definitely not intended. See: Favored Classes. That's as much indication as anything. Unless you want to say that the devs intended people to be taking huge experience penalties to level up?
2. It improves the game only after gaining rules mastery. Better game design, that is to say, not sloppy would have incorporated it as a core part of the ruleset.
3. No false dichotomy, considering my argument is purely against the heavy dip multiclass style where even levels in prestige classes or alignment requirement base classes are taken purely for utility to the overall build. Multiclassing between a small number of classes was clearly intended. Again, See: Favored Classes.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 07:54 PM
This is a 3.5e discussion, so 3.0 is completely irrelevant.
3.5 is a revision of 3.0, not a new system. The core design elements weren't changed, and thus remain relevant.


I think I've made my point. If your only argument is that multiclassing isn't how the game was "meant to be played" then you obviously must dislike the metagame of... well, most all games in existence, really, but I just sampled some of the more popular competitive sports and games to point out the fact that all games are based on interactions not intended by those who made the rules.

He was responding to a specific statement: "Classes aren't meant to be taken to completion. PrCs exist." The statement is, to a fair degree of rigor, demonstrably false: classes were designed to be taken to completion, and PrCs were presented as optional.

A great deal of the better design later in the cycle improved that optional element. That does not change the fact that is was designed as optional and classes were designed to be taken to completion.

I wouldn't often play a game where all PrCs are disallowed. I think the game works better with at least the option of multiclassing (though I dislike builds where there isn't a highly dominant class). But that doesn't change the basic design or the game or force me to like the same things about it you do.


The Barbarian has Mighty Rage and the Druid has Huge Elemental Wild Shape, but I refuse to accept "5th Favored Enemy" or "Bonus feat #11" or "Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance" as a capstone.

You kind of undermine your argument with the monk example. Perfect self and Slow Fall any distance are clearly supposed to be capstones. They just happen to be the very poorly designed capstones of a poorly designed class. 3.5 also was designed using 4d6 best 3, which a lot of players consider flatly unacceptable in contrast with 32Pb.

Milskidasith
2010-06-12, 07:57 PM
I share with you the opinion on Fav. Enemy or Bonus Feat 11, but Perfect Self was clearly intended as a capstone. It's a terrible capstone, and more proof of poor design, but when there aren't even appropriate PrC or multiclass options to maintain several of the concepts that are supposed to be represented by all 11 base classes...

These classes were intended to be taken to 20. By people who were, say it with me, sloppy game designers.

Say it with me: Emergent. Gameplay. It exists in every popular game ever, and unless you want to claim all game developers are sloppy and got good games entirely through luck, then you have to admit that the developers are not omniscient gods, and things will appear that aren't necessarily how the developers intended. It doesn't hurt the game, and it's not proof the designers are bad (the Monk capstone is, however).

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 08:02 PM
Say it with me: Emergent. Gameplay. It exists in every popular game ever, and unless you want to claim all game developers are sloppy and got good games entirely through luck, then you have to admit that the developers are not omniscient gods, and things will appear that aren't necessarily how the developers intended. It doesn't hurt the game, and it's not proof the designers are bad (the Monk capstone is, however).

Dip-based multiclassing is a huge part of the game, upon which innumerable builds exist - both TO and PO - which flat-out requires a houserule that breaks a major originating conceit of the game or risk being crippled by experience penalties. When emergent gameplay utterly dominates a game in order for it to work and is unintuitive, that is textbook sloppy design.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-12, 08:10 PM
Say it with me: Emergent. Gameplay. It exists in every popular game ever...

Emergent play doesn't always go in the same direction for everyone involved. It tends to cluster based on who is playing with whom and to what degree there exists wide flow of strategic information between clusters. Since there is no centralized league for D&D (at least not one with real dominance over most gameplay), there is no codification. This results in people playing very different games that are still 3.5 D&D.

The people playing these games may find emphasizing the features which you consider pivotal to be detrimental to their enjoyment of the game. They're still playing D&D.

RelentlessImp
2010-06-12, 08:15 PM
To answer the OP:

Because then you wind up with a Hood (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2462.0).

Raistlin1040
2010-06-12, 08:20 PM
1. It's definitely not intended. See: Favored Classes. That's as much indication as anything. Unless you want to say that the devs intended people to be taking huge experience penalties to level up?
2. It improves the game only after gaining rules mastery. Better game design, that is to say, not sloppy would have incorporated it as a core part of the ruleset.
3. No false dichotomy, considering my argument is purely against the heavy dip multiclass style where even levels in prestige classes or alignment requirement base classes are taken purely for utility to the overall build. Multiclassing between a small number of classes was clearly intended. Again, See: Favored Classes.I can accept that the Devs are crazy, but don't they have some level of continuity, at least in Core? If they intended us to take Fighter 20, Wizard 20, etc, then why does the Eldritch Knight exist? And any other Prestige Class that requires multiclassing?

Tavar
2010-06-12, 08:38 PM
Actually, dipping doesn't require any houserule, as long as all base classes except your favored one are within 1 level of each other.

And how is this unintuitive? My first dnd characters were multiclassed(ranger/rouge, emphasis on the rogue).

PlzBreakMyCmpAn
2010-06-12, 08:41 PM
It's been less than an hour. :smallconfused:


see the favored class system, which places harsh limits on how well you can multiclass. The way people make builds now is a hack rather than a design feature of the original engine.My BG post mentioned the favored class system, which I use. Dipping isn't a hack though, its very clearly meant to be available.


I profoundly disagree. I find the strength of D&D to be that D20 is relatively simple and adaptable, and the player base very wide. I don't like mix-and-matchThen we must disagree. I don't find DnD all that simple, but perhaps that's because I purposely do complicated things with it.

the
need to mix and match front-loaded classes with redundant concepts to maintain playability is a major flaw.If we are discussing "melee's can't have nice things" my BG post covers that. Outside of that glaring system problem, I find redundant dips are rarely needed for playability...

AstralFire
2010-06-12, 08:45 PM
Actually, dipping doesn't require any houserule, as long as all base classes except your favored one are within 1 level of each other.

And how is this unintuitive? My first dnd characters were multiclassed(ranger/rouge, emphasis on the rogue).


I can accept that the Devs are crazy, but don't they have some level of continuity, at least in Core? If they intended us to take Fighter 20, Wizard 20, etc, then why does the Eldritch Knight exist? And any other Prestige Class that requires multiclassing?

PrCs are the optional rule and represent narrower character concepts. Like blending two classes together. I did not present a dichotomy of 'multiclassing was not intended' - I did present 'multiple dip multiclassing is not intended.' Especially since 3.5 purposely made several core classes less attractive for dipping and was the upgrade that added more capstones.

Critical
2010-06-12, 08:45 PM
So, if PrC's never existed, and there'd be Fighter 20's or Wizard 20's hanging around, it would be pretty boring with some time. Wizards realized it, and BAM, PrC's were created. That's why exist, now stop this meaningless discussion. :smalltongue:

Runestar
2010-06-12, 09:28 PM
I can accept that the Devs are crazy, but don't they have some level of continuity, at least in Core? If they intended us to take Fighter 20, Wizard 20, etc, then why does the Eldritch Knight exist? And any other Prestige Class that requires multiclassing?

Those prcs were likely conceived in response to the sad realisation that certain build concepts just aren't viable under existing multiclassing rules, such as the fighter/mage, rogue/mage or mage/cleric (which were fairly popular in 2e). You cannot tell me that a wiz10/cleric10 is supposed to be equivalent in power to a wiz20, but that was exactly what I saw in 3.0 adventure modules and articles!

So you need those prcs to make these character concepts viable.

Though to be honest, I also fail to see what all the hoohaa over this apparent need to have to take a single class all the way to lv20 is. To me, prcs are simply an extension of existing classes. Say a rogue reaches 7th lv. You can opt to continue with what you do best (continue going rogue), train harder on your ability to hide till you are one with the shadow (go shadowdancer) or focus on killing people (go assassin).

To me, you are no less of a rogue regardless of whether you are a rogue20 or a rogue/monk/assassin/shadowdancer mix. :smallsmile:

Gametime
2010-06-12, 10:24 PM
Heavy multiclassing is usually a sign of optimization, which is often (unfairly) associated with game-breaking munchkinery. People who don't like heavy multiclassing for mechanical, rather than aesthetic, reasons may feel that way because they don't realize that multiclassing is sufficient but not necessary for game-breaking, or that a heavily-multiclassed build can be perfectly fit to the power level of any given campaign.

Regarding the ongoing discussion about how 3.5's multiclassing impacts the system's design, I think the issue is the discrepancy between class level benefits. Some classes get extremely sporadic upgrades that make multiclassing have virtually no downside; the Barbarian, for instance, gets access to Rage at first level. To get better Rages, you need several levels which offer comparatively little else.

At the other end of the spectrum, you have spellcasters, who effectively get the best class feature ever every single level but only as long as you keep taking that one class (or a suitable prestige class, which is a whole separate issue). We get a whole set of classes that is virtually worthless for multiclassing (spellcasters, except for the occasional dip for Turn Undead or in Theurge-style builds), and a whole different set that is virtually worthless for single-classing (anyone who doesn't have scaling, level-based abilities).

Later classes work better with the multiclassing system, especially Binders (who offer low-level vestiges that are still good, if not great, at higher levels), meldshapers (ditto, but with soulmelds), and martial adepts (who actually can multiclass without losing higher level class features, to some extent). I've occasionally wondered what D&D would be like if Binders, meldshapers, and invocation-users used a system similar to ToB for multiclassing, encouraging dipping to gain access to better abilities from those subsystems.

I don't like heavy multiclassing because it represents the fact that the classes which benefit most from it lack significant class features between the first few levels, and that irks me no end. I don't mind when other people do it, though; my reaction is purely a personal preference.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-12, 11:33 PM
I think the PrCs based on in-world organizations are there to provide what the base classes don't really provide by default, a feeling of being part of something, a sense of participation, sense of belonging. Your not just a cleric of the sun god, you are a Radiant Servant of Pelor, destroyer the undead sacrilege. You are not merely a wizard, you are a Red Wizard of Thay, a powerful mage of a powerful order.
One thing that was rather neat, if not going so well with the 'classes as meta' concept,was how in 1st edition you advanced in your chosen organization as you levelled up. You are not merely at level 11 fighter, you were a Lord, an integral part of a feudal society, with followers and responsibilities.
You were part of something bigger.
Flavour matters, whether printed or your own, or we are just chucking dice.

JonestheSpy
2010-06-12, 11:39 PM
Actually, dipping doesn't require any houserule, as long as all base classes except your favored one are within 1 level of each other.


Yeah, surprising how little this point is mentioned in this discussion. It seems to balance out just fine in my opinion when you take the favored class rules into account - though I get the impression that many folks just ignore them.

Amphetryon
2010-06-13, 04:59 AM
Those prcs were likely conceived in response to the sad realisation that certain build concepts just aren't viable under existing multiclassing rules, such as the fighter/mage, rogue/mage or mage/cleric (which were fairly popular in 2e). You cannot tell me that a wiz10/cleric10 is supposed to be equivalent in power to a wiz20, but that was exactly what I saw in 3.0 adventure modules and articles!

So you need those prcs to make these character concepts viable.
This, for me, highlights the reason for using dips: concept. If a player comes to me with an idea for a character that clearly needs to dip in order to fit the concept, no problem. On the other hand, if the player either has no character-driven rationale for taking Barb 1/Rogue 2/Ranger 2 etc, I'll be more likely to monitor that player as one who is trying to 'win' D&D.

The argument that WotC didn't intend for classes to be taken to 20th level because PrC's exist is clearly fallacious, simply because the 20th levels of those classes do exist. By the same metric of the previous argument, their existence proves that they were intended to see play.

Runestar
2010-06-13, 05:15 AM
The argument that WotC didn't intend for classes to be taken to 20th level because PrC's exist is clearly fallacious, simply because the 20th levels of those classes do exist. By the same metric of the previous argument, their existence proves that they were intended to see play.

I think the point is not so much that lv20 won't see play, but more that it is not very likely. So the designers might have put less thought/effort into playtesting higher lv stuff, and focused more on balancing low lv gameplay. Higher lv options are still available for completeness' sake (and for the odd person who might want to play lv100 games), but you will find they aren't really attractive.

This is possibly why 3.5 is still fairly balanced up to ~lv12, and proceeds to fall apart afterwards.

Eloi
2010-06-13, 05:53 AM
I think the point is not so much that lv20 won't see play, but more that it is not very likely. So the designers might have put less thought/effort into playtesting higher lv stuff, and focused more on balancing low lv gameplay. Higher lv options are still available for completeness' sake (and for the odd person who might want to play lv100 games), but you will find they aren't really attractive.

This is possibly why 3.5 is still fairly balanced up to ~lv12, and proceeds to fall apart afterwards.

So would a campaign only involving core races with Tier 3 classes with no magic items starting at Level 1 ending at Level 12 be the most balanced campaign you could run?

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-13, 05:56 AM
So would a campaign only involving core races with Tier 3 classes with no magic items starting at Level 1 ending at Level 12 be the most balanced campaign you could run?

Not quite. Taking items out is a strange choice; the game assumes them. Also, there are some nice, fairly balanced non-core races.

Amphetryon
2010-06-13, 05:57 AM
So would a campaign only involving core races with Tier 3 classes with no magic items starting at Level 1 ending at Level 12 be the most balanced campaign you could run?
Not really. Shapechange, etc, is available in Core.

Eloi
2010-06-13, 06:07 AM
Not really. Candles of Invocation, Shapechange, etc, are available in Core.

Candles of Invocation are banned, like I noted 'no magic items', and Tier 3 classes can't cast Shapechange.

Amphetryon
2010-06-13, 06:20 AM
Candles of Invocation are banned, like I noted 'no magic items', and Tier 3 classes can't cast Shapechange.
On the first point, I blame early morning lack of coffee. My bad.

On the second point, I'm fairly sure some Tier 3 classes have UMD and the ability to cast spells from a scroll. EDIT: not to mention Wildshape Ranger

Runestar
2010-06-13, 06:38 AM
So would a campaign only involving core races with Tier 3 classes with no magic items starting at Level 1 ending at Level 12 be the most balanced campaign you could run?

More like fighters can still contribute meaningfully alongside casters up to lv10-12. After that, they start falling behind, mainly because their class features and feat selection can no longer catch up with spells. Because that is when wizards start removing foes from the game entirely using forcecage or reverse gravity.

This would be true regardless of whether the game is core or not, since most of the problematic stuff stems from core, while non-core material actually benefit non-casters more. A dweomerkeeper or incantatrix merely gives you more ways to break the game, it is not as though a core wizard cannot already do that.

Alternatively, run wizards as dumb blasters who do nothing but hurl meteor swarms and polar rays in combat. Then the tarrasque might actually seem threatening.:smallamused:

Claudius Maximus
2010-06-13, 06:41 AM
Seriously people, why would there be wizards and 9th level scrolls in a tier 3 world that caps at 12th level?

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-13, 06:41 AM
My biggest problem with the idea of "Homebrew" replacing "class dipping" is that more than 50% of the "Homebrew" I've seen is very unbalanced compared to existing, published material.

It's like all the people who keep wanting to take Racial Levels off of monster characters. The Racial Levels are there for just as much of a balance as the LA. There's a reason many caster PrCs have levels that don't improve caster level/spells per day... because they offer other abilities that make them better than just taking more levels of the base class.

Also, it's been stated by the designers that some things (Classes, PrCs, Feats) were specifically designed to be not as good as others... so that, as you learned the system, you could avoid the bad things and "become better at playing the game".


I don't particularly dislike dipping and multiclassing, as long as they support what the player's character concept is. What I really dislike is when the player just takes a dip in a level just to qualify for a PrC later on. No in-character justification, no personal reasons, just purely mechanical ones.

Since I never play generic D&D, I always allow liberal changes with fluff in PrCs to fit in the setting we primarily play in (Eberron). Thus, the Ordained Champion can work for any religion with a martial bent (thus, in Eberron, an OC can be from the churches of Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, the Mockery, the Silver Flame, Bahamut, or Tiamat).

So, knowing that I want my character to get both Shou Disciple and Fist of the Forest, I start with Monk-2, then go Fighter-2. I dip Fighter just for the full BAB and Fighter Bonus Feats, but it's very clear that I have a goal in mind.

The obvious in-character justification is, the character is training herself in the most rigorously efficient manner to become this martial arts champion.

Seriously... requiring an in-character justification for a class-dip ("My character studied the ways of the Warblade to learn these specific Stone Dragon maneuvers so she could further devistate her targets.") seems to punish those who aren't as imaginative ("I picked up Warblade because Martial Maneuvers are cool!").


I would say dipping is a problem in a system where each class was usually meant to be taken to completion as an entire archetype. Technically, if we are going full RAI&W - rules as intended and written, multiclassing in 3.x D&D strongly reflects this - see the favored class system, which places harsh limits on how well you can multiclass. The way people make builds now is a hack rather than a design feature of the original engine. It's served 3.x well, but it was never meant to go that way. And I think it is an issue when your design has to ignore a major conceit of the core system in order to get it to work; that's sloppy game design.

Again: Compare Saga.

Given the sheer number of PrCs that cannot be taken without multiclassing... I don't think you're correct here. PrCs, for the most part, are designed to give you extra benefits because you multiclass.

Amphetryon
2010-06-13, 07:19 AM
Seriously... requiring an in-character justification for a class-dip ("My character studied the ways of the Warblade to learn these specific Stone Dragon maneuvers so she could further devistate her targets.") seems to punish those who aren't as imaginative ("I picked up Warblade because Martial Maneuvers are cool!").In a game of cooperative storytelling and interactive, descriptive combats, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing. It encourages players to invest their imaginations in the world you're creating together.

AstralFire
2010-06-13, 07:33 AM
Given the sheer number of PrCs that cannot be taken without multiclassing... I don't think you're correct here. PrCs, for the most part, are designed to give you extra benefits because you multiclass.

At no point did I say anything against multiclassing in general. Considering that a PrC is itself a type of multiclass (albeit one that ducks the experience penalties), that doesn't even make sense. In fact, if I were to attack the nonsensical argument that multiclassing at all were not intended, I would again point to the Favored Class rules. Favored Class: Any is a free check to get at least one secondary class.

Multiple dip-based multiclassing is what was not intended.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-13, 08:13 AM
Multiple dip-based multiclassing is what was not intended.

Actually as long as you keep dipping classes (or go into PrCs) you avoid multiclassing penalties. So Barbarian 2/ Fighter 2/ Ranger 2/ Rogue 3/ Assassin 5/Eldritch Knight 6 is just as intended as Fighter 5/Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight 10 (for example).

That "multiclassing penalties" allow you to take one level each of twenty classes without penalty and can leave with no experience gain if you take a mere six is a serious indication as to why I dislike them and do not use them. That they stifle creativity is another important point against them.[/rant]

Greenish
2010-06-13, 09:00 AM
There's a reason many caster PrCs have levels that don't improve caster level/spells per day... because they offer other abilities that make them better than just taking more levels of the base class.Except that they almost never do.

Anyway, I kinda like both classes that can be taken to 20 and the dipdipdipping, and I utterly loathe "favoured classes" mechanic.

Naia
2010-06-13, 09:08 AM
Do we really need the argument at all? I mean - we're doing this for fun, right? Just let every group do it the way they think is the most fun.

I can personally argue both for and against all of the following:
- Picking a class and following it through to the end (maybe one instance of multiclassing tops)
- Dipping left and right for optimizing
- Dipping left and right to tailor craft for your characters liking (thx Scionofthevoid :smallwink:)
- Creating homebrew classes tailor crafted to the characters
(and maybe even more options I haven't thought of...)

IMO it all depends on why you play and what your focus is - roleplaying, optimizing to the max, creativity and so forth.

But hey - I like a good argument just for the fun of it too. :smallbiggrin:

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-13, 09:28 AM
Do we really need the argument at all? I mean - we're doing this for fun, right? Just let every group do it the way they think is the most fun.

I can personally argue both for and against all of the following:
- Picking a class and following it through to the end (maybe one instance of multiclassing tops)
- Dipping left and right for optimizing to the max
- Creating homebrew classes tailor crafted to the characters
(and maybe even more options I haven't thought of...)

IMO it all depends on why you play and what your focus is - roleplaying, optimizing to the max, creativity and so forth.

But hey - I like a good argument just for the fun of it too. :smallbiggrin:

You should probably include dipping left and right (without the optimisation association) as well as what you have now. If I want a warrior who strikes with precision, fighting with two weapons and does this in a state of furious bloodlust the obvious solution is Barbarian X/Ranger or Fighter 2/ Rogue Y, though that's certainly not particularly optimised (at least I don't think it is. Not necessarily dead weight, but certainly nothing special). Likewise a character blending arcane magic with the wieding of a dire flail is probably going to be Fighter/Wizard or Fighter/Sorcerer, even though a Bard could do the much the same.

Endarire
2010-06-13, 04:15 PM
Player's Handbook 60 states this about favored classes:

XP FOR MULTICLASS CHARACTERS
Developing and maintaining skills and abilities in more than one class is a demanding process. Depending on the character’s class levels and race, he or she might or might not suffer an XP penalty.

Even Levels: If your multiclass character’s classes are nearly the same level (all within one class level of each other), then he or she can balance the needs of the multiple classes without penalty. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue takes no penalty, nor does a 2nd-level fighter/2nd-level wizard/3rd-level rogue.

Uneven Levels: If any two of your multiclass character’s classes are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and maintaining different skills at different levels takes its toll. Your multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class’s level too high. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue gets no penalty, but if that character raises his wizard level to 5th, then he takes the –20% penalty from that point on until his
levels were nearly even again.


"Beating" The System

So long as you have no more than 2 levels of an unfavored base class, there is no experience penalty!

Be a Barbarian1/Fighter1/Cleric1/Wizard1/Cheeselicker1... and if you meet all requirements including DM approval, you're fine.

Perhaps an unintended consequence ('emergent result') of 3.5's rules is that it promotes base class dipping in this way.

Lycanthromancer
2010-06-13, 04:35 PM
...Cheeselicker1...It's not a Lancre Blue, is it? Those things are vicious.


Perhaps an unintended consequence ('emergent result') of 3.5's rules is that it promotes base class dipping in this way.Once you hit a certain point, you can't NOT continue dipping without massively huge XP penalties, unless you want a racial class or a PrC.

Should've given a 5% bonus for taking a level in your favored class, or granted extra skill points and a full HD for that level, or something instead.

Greenish
2010-06-13, 04:37 PM
Should've given a 5% bonus for taking a level in your favored class, or granted extra skill points and a full HD for that level, or something instead.Pathfinder gives you +1 hp or skill point for levels you take in your favoured class, unless I'm mistaken.

ScionoftheVoid
2010-06-13, 05:01 PM
Player's Handbook 60 states this about favored classes:

XP FOR MULTICLASS CHARACTERS
Developing and maintaining skills and abilities in more than one class is a demanding process. Depending on the character’s class levels and race, he or she might or might not suffer an XP penalty.

Even Levels: If your multiclass character’s classes are nearly the same level (all within one class level of each other), then he or she can balance the needs of the multiple classes without penalty. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue takes no penalty, nor does a 2nd-level fighter/2nd-level wizard/3rd-level rogue.

Uneven Levels: If any two of your multiclass character’s classes are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and maintaining different skills at different levels takes its toll. Your multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class’s level too high. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level rogue gets no penalty, but if that character raises his wizard level to 5th, then he takes the –20% penalty from that point on until his
levels were nearly even again.


"Beating" The System

So long as you have no more than 2 levels of an unfavored base class, there is no experience penalty!

Be a Barbarian1/Fighter1/Cleric1/Wizard1/Cheeselicker1... and if you meet all requirements including DM approval, you're fine.

Perhaps an unintended consequence ('emergent result') of 3.5's rules is that it promotes base class dipping in this way.


Actually as long as you keep dipping classes (or go into PrCs) you avoid multiclassing penalties. So Barbarian 2/ Fighter 2/ Ranger 2/ Rogue 3/ Assassin 5/Eldritch Knight 6 is just as intended as Fighter 5/Wizard 5/ Eldritch Knight 10 (for example).

That "multiclassing penalties" allow you to take one level each of twenty classes without penalty and can leave with no experience gain if you take a mere six is a serious indication as to why I dislike them and do not use them. That they stifle creativity is another important point against them.[/rant]

Ummm... Ninja'dSwordsagedFactotum'd?There's no way in the Nine Hells I'm Wis focused. Int on the other hand...

Edit: @^ That is, IIRC, how the PF version works.

Pluto
2010-06-13, 06:41 PM
...OP...

To answer the OP:

Because then you wind up with a Hood (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2462.0).
I chuckled.

Greenish
2010-06-13, 06:50 PM
I chuckled.I believe the expression is "Hoisted by his own petard".

How one can be hoisted by a small bomb is beyond me, though.

Pluto
2010-06-13, 06:50 PM
Also, see my BG post.

My BG post mentioned the favored class system, which I use. Dipping isn't a hack though, its very clearly meant to be available.
...
my BG post covers that.


PlzBreakMyCampaign
Donkey Kong
****
Posts: 760

You're going to have to narrow this down for communication's sake.


I believe the expression is "Hoisted by his own petard".

How one can be hoisted by a small bomb is beyond me, though.
I bet his damage on the way down would be pretty spectacular though.

Runestar
2010-06-13, 06:59 PM
Just curious - is there some aggressive dipping combination which is particularly abusive, or are people here just complaining for the sake of complaining?

The only time I remember anything along this line was when a poster sought the help of the CO boards to create a PC which was supposed to be the offspring of a werebear barb and succubus bard (2 npcs in an earlier campaign). The CO board came up with a bard/barb/spellsword/bear warrior/rage mage/sublime chord/eldritch knight combination, which wasn't game-breaking, but fitted his character's backstory to a perfect T.

Likewise, classes are a metagame concept to begin with. I don't see anything less "fightery" about a PC whether he is a fighter20 or a barb2/fighter18. :smallmad:

Ozymandias9
2010-06-13, 07:04 PM
I bet his damage on the way down would be pretty spectacular though.

Petards are really small: Just black poweder (not even a lot of it), a fuse, and a small space. The hoisted metaphor is, IIRC, based on Engineers getting caught in the explosion because the fuse wasn't slow enough and getting knocked up in the air. I don't believe it was regularly fatal, but I could be wrong.

Greenish
2010-06-13, 07:23 PM
Petards are really small: Just black poweder (not even a lot of it), a fuse, and a small space. The hoisted metaphor is, IIRC, based on Engineers getting caught in the explosion because the fuse wasn't slow enough and getting knocked up in the air. I don't believe it was regularly fatal, but I could be wrong.According to my excellent dictionary, the origin of the saying is from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Optimystik
2010-06-13, 07:33 PM
While I agree that multi-dips look ugly, that's really all I have against them. If you need a variety of base classes to fit your concept then by all means do so, it's generally only for melee classes anyway and they need all the help they can get.

Moofaa
2010-06-13, 07:58 PM
In my homebrew games my stance on multi-classing varies. In my sci-fi setting I am just using modified non-jedi classes from the SAGA rules, and multi-classing is fine.

In my homebrew fantasy setting you can multiclass between fighter/rogue and other non-magic classes. However, the magic users CANNOT multiclass for reasons of story, theme, and the fact that my magic-system is totally different from the vancian D&D system and would be horribly broken. Likewise I also restrict some races from certain classes and some have no class, but level as monsters with specific abilities each level. In this case its fine to restrict since I have real reasons for plot, theme, etc.

If I am running a standard D&D setting then really players can use whatever they want as long as I can review it first, and I reserve the right to over-rule this stuff if it turns out to be full of cheesey-brokeness. Also my players know that I can and will utilize the same cheesey builds for antogonist NPCs. Anything they do I can do better.

When playing I personally don't like to multi-class beyond 2 classes. It gets too complicated for me and I lose interest when number-crunching and picking over feats/spells/abilities.

Also I think it looks ridiculous when someone is a Half-Dragon-Quarter-Dwarf-quarter-Ogre Fighter/Rogue/Preist/LudicrouslyNamesClass/EvenMoreLudicrouslyNamedClass

Granted, it might fit their vision of whatever their character should be but I think you can find the same theme without going overboard the way some people will.

Gametime
2010-06-13, 09:12 PM
Also I think it looks ridiculous when someone is a Half-Dragon-Quarter-Dwarf-quarter-Ogre Fighter/Rogue/Preist/LudicrouslyNamesClass/EvenMoreLudicrouslyNamedClass



At the risk of sounding obnoxious, I don't think anyone disagrees that ridiculous examples look ridiculous.

The fact that these examples are presented as though they are actual builds, though, is perhaps disingenuous. Often, heavily-dipping builds will feature a variety of classes that are tied together both thematically and mechanically.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-13, 09:22 PM
For my own personal tastes I have a personal "rule of three" as it were:

You have three classes max. Two can be base classes. The third either hybridizes the first two classes, or specializes one of the first two, or is a dip of some kind. No more then one Prestige Class period. Also some base classes are PrC in all but name, like the PHB II ones. Templates are considered PrCs.

Now I still apply common sense, if there's an exceptional case I'd make the exception and don't apply this to epic but... In short if you need more then allowed here to create your character then in my mind you are either trying too hard, or are looking for some overly specific mechanics combo. And I'm suspicious that even if not totally optimized its going to smell like cheese.

Just that at the end of the day I think character classes should mean something to your character. They say something about the character beyond mechanics. They represent a particular training and background if not an exact organization. And PrCs, well its a Prestige Class there should be a sort of pride there. Its not just martial artist... its Student of the School of the Undefeated of the East!

I'll basically transpose the character into a novel. Do they still resemble a defined character with a reasonable background. Or is it more like something out of a bad fanfic. Lets say the setting is King Arthur and Camelot:

Character was born noble, squired and was knighted. Cool.
Character traveled to the orient and studied with a ninja clan. Okay.
Character also travelled to with Vikings and is a dedicated priest of Odin. Uh-huh.
Character while still a pagan was trained under fanatical Islamic assassins in Alamut. You see where I'm going with this?

Its not that I'm suggesting PC can't have unusual backgrounds even. Heck check out Sir Palamedes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Palamedes) the token Saracen of the Round Table. Any one of the above background elements is more or less fine.

But like all things there's only so much. Too much and you stop resembling real characters and more idealized super-do-anything characters. Even if two of your features work together (like the ninja and assassin above) it doesn't eliminate the vast cultural differences between them. While character classes shouldn't necessarily be that far apart, its still the same basic principle.

Now generally those that give a hoot about classes as more then mechanics packages generally respond by suggesting a rewriting of the fluff. To me this isn't the same because if there's no fluff difference then its not a separate class anyways. It misses the point and often enough is just the underlying motivation of mechanics first justify it however later showing.

Why does it all matter though, beyond my personal sense of aesthetics? Simply enough: immersion. D&D is the original RPG, that's role-playing game if you will. When your character is a slapped together mechanics package its not immersing yourself in the world. And that immersion is (while not the only part certainly) what separates the pen & paper from WoW or any dime a dozen MMOs. And when you just put together whatever you want it encourages thinking about things merely in terms of mechanics. And far too often focusing on mechanics, and the close cousin optimizing, becomes about 'winning' the game.

Khellendross
2010-06-13, 09:30 PM
I'm only against level dipping if it doesn't make sense or you don't role play it. If you're in a barbarian, fighter etc in a dungeon crawl and you've never even picked up a spellbook or read magic or even attempted to cast it and then out of nowhere take a level of wizard and just say I can do it cause there is nothing saying I can't then it's pretty weak. A sorc sure! They get their magic from within and can learn a spell by bumping into a chair. A wizard is an academic class. Times like that I dislike it. Other times it's very useful to gain certain abilities in order to mold a character concept as long as you role play it out in some manner or can explain it.

Milskidasith
2010-06-13, 09:36 PM
Why does it all matter though, beyond my personal sense of aesthetics? Simply enough: immersion. D&D is the original RPG, that's role-playing game if you will. When your character is a slapped together mechanics package its not immersing yourself in the world. And that immersion is (while not the only part certainly) what separates the pen & paper from WoW or any dime a dozen MMOs. And when you just put together whatever you want it encourages thinking about things merely in terms of mechanics. And far too often focusing on mechanics, and the close cousin optimizing, becomes about 'winning' the game.

Stormwind fallacy, through and through. You are saying that you can't do good roleplaying along with optimized/highly dipped characters, which is fallacious, especially when plenty of PrCs "of X" have most of the flavor be the abilities which can easily be rewritten; why require the person be dedicated to Wu Pelorthulhu the Burning Hatesmodeus of Pun Pun when the PrC doesn't have any abilities really specific to him?

As for fluff differences: Classes are not fluff. The classes are the mechanics behind them. The fluff for classes should have a level of seriousness to it, at least in a serious campaign (Assassins can't be bright color wearing clowns who sneak by due to loudly shouting I'M NOT PLANNING TO KILL YOU and sneak attack with rubber chickens that have the stats of daggers, to give an absurd example), but the fluff is mutable. If the player only wants the class abilities, then rewriting the fluff is perfectly reasonable; look at all the varied sources spellcasters get for their abilities, when the only mechanical differences between them are recovery mechanics and whether they are prepared or spontaneous.

Caphi
2010-06-13, 09:41 PM
Why does it all matter though, beyond my personal sense of aesthetics? Simply enough: immersion. D&D is the original RPG, that's role-playing game if you will. When your character is a slapped together mechanics package its not immersing yourself in the world. And that immersion is (while not the only part certainly) what separates the pen & paper from WoW or any dime a dozen MMOs. And when you just put together whatever you want it encourages thinking about things merely in terms of mechanics. And far too often focusing on mechanics, and the close cousin optimizing, becomes about 'winning' the game.

Oh my goodness, so much Stormwind. Let me try to enumerate the fallacies.

I'll start with the low-hanging fruit, the slippery slope that any care that goes into building the character leads inevitably to one-upsmanship, arms races, and eventually full-blown munchkinism in the worst sense of the term. Mechanics are a tool to express characters. Many of us build fun concepts, and part of the concept is that the character is good at something. Not to chase after things that would make the character better at what the character is supposed to do is bad roleplaying, and distasteful to boot, be it a rogue that splashes swordsage for ninja tricks or a wizard that researches the tricks of various groups or a beguiler that hones the power of his mind to increase his power.

For the second point, "slapped-together mechanics packages" are also bad optimization on top of being bad roleplaying. Excepting certain builds, most will build towards a point with a specific goal in mind, one thing the character is great at, a theme that can be best attained by mechanical entities from various classes. It doesn't matter how many classes are on your class line. In the game world, you are simply the coolest enchanter/thief/pirate/blacksmith in the world, because you know all the tricks and secrets.

The third: Identifying all game entities by their classes is immersion neutral, at best. The guy over there isn't a Fighter with a capital F, he's a swordmaster who is ludicrously skilled at dodging and parrying. My swordsage is a member of a secluded temple where the students train night and day to unlock the power of the human body, and at no time does he actually introduce himself as a "swordsage". In fact, the name is ludicrous to him - he doesn't use a sword, he fights with his arms and legs. Even a wizard is merely one name, and in truth you may be a magister, a channeler, or a "professor of conjuration".

UndeadCleric
2010-06-13, 09:42 PM
Power-wise, a Barbarian4 is probably weaker than a Barbarian1/Cleric1/Fighter2, depending on the options. Also, in general, non-casters benefit far more from dipping and multiclassing than non-casters. The rules allow and sometimes encourage heavy multiclassing to fulfill a concept. (See Complete Adventurer's Fochluran Lyrist.) Despite this, I read of many people- DMs especially- who dislike the notion of dipping.

Do you panic when you see someone heavily dipped, like a different class each level? How does your group feel? What about your DM? How effective were they?

How do you feel when a well-played Wizard, Cleric, Druid, or Artificer comes along with the ability to end or stalemate fights in a spell or two? Do you wonder what prestige class or feat allowed that to happen? Do you accept it as casters being casters? Again, how does your group feel?

From an in-game perspective, an adventurer risks his life on a daily basis, not knowing what perils will befall him. (Smart adventurers stay informed and often pay well for good help.) Mr. Adventurer probably wants to be the best X he can be. Maybe he trained with the Frostrim Giants, the Greenring Druids, and a variety of other organizations to learn their styles. Maybe he learned this through self-study and experimentation; someone must be the first!

Also, classes are groups of related abilities. Someone who sttudies at an academy may earn the title of "Wizard" or "Mage" even as a Sorcerer, Bard, or Wu Jen. A group of nomads may be called "Barbarians," regardless of their class levels. The creepy guy in the woods gets all sorts of titles, even if he's a Commoner. The quickest path to martial greatness is not Fighter20, especially if Tome of Battle or non-core material is allowed.

Is there so much connotation of a class name- "Barbarian," "Witch," "Sorcerer" - that you can think of them as nothing beyond your first impression?

If you reference Y sources, do people feel inadequate or that you're trying too hard?

I agree but I felt it was necesary to point out the insanity inherent in the above.

Private-Prinny
2010-06-13, 09:50 PM
I agree but I felt it was necesary to point out the insanity inherent in the above.

How is that insanity? :smallconfused:

A Barbarian can dip Fighter for bonus feats, or Warblade for a couple of maneuvers, but there is not a single other base class that's worth a full caster's time to take, barring theurge builds.

tyckspoon
2010-06-13, 09:50 PM
How is that insanity? :smallconfused:

A Barbarian can dip Fighter for bonus feats, or Warblade for a couple of maneuvers, but there is not a single other base class that's worth a full caster's time to take, barring theurge builds.

Typo; the quoted poster ended up comparing non-casters to non-casters.

Tavar
2010-06-13, 09:50 PM
Character was born noble, squired and was knighted. Cool.
Character traveled to the orient and studied with a ninja clan. Okay.
Character also travelled to with Vikings and is a dedicated priest of Odin. Uh-huh.
Character while still a pagan was trained under fanatical Islamic assassins in Alamut. You see where I'm going with this?.

So...what does that have to do with classes? And how would it break your rules? Cleric/swordsage/Adapted Ruby Knight Vindicator(seriously, the only thing you have to adapt there is the deity it's devoted to, there's literally nothing in the mechanics that's related to the deity). You could also probably do something like Rogue/[Paladin or Cleric]/Appropriate Shadowbane class.

Seriously, your complaint amounts to "I don't like ridiculous backstories, so having multiple classes is bad." I really don't see a connection.

erikun
2010-06-13, 10:13 PM
Why the dislike? Probably because of the inherit assumption of heavy multiclassing = optimizing = munchkining. Something like a Ranger/Knight/Dragonrider has a very clear theme and character concept, with pretty much all the classes focused on the concept. Something like Half-Giant Half-Troll Barbarian/ Fighter/ Psychic Warrior/ Samurai/ Binder/ Scout/ Kensai/ Hulking Hurler is a bit less clear on what the character is actually supposed to be, much less what they are supposed to do.

There's also the point that, unless each class is pure melee with only specific abilities, more classes means more combinations of abilities that the DM needs to predict and respond to. Not every DM is good with on-the-spot rulings, and I don't think many DMs want to suddenly find out that a character can cast a spell which resets their soulmelds to six arms and firebreathing, which automatically activates a power which imprisons an enemy with refreshes all the character's spells.

And if you think that's just silly, you've apparently underestimated what some people wish to bring into a game.


Also, in regard to the current conversation: Why is it assumes that fluff is so easily changable, yet crunch is so difficult?

Tavar
2010-06-13, 10:21 PM
If I replace the fluff of the warblade with that of the barbarian, what unbalancing things happen? Nothing that I can think of. On the other hand, swapping out class features is much more likely to make someone much less powerful.

Endarire
2010-06-13, 10:27 PM
I fixed the OP's typo.

erikun
2010-06-13, 10:44 PM
If I replace the fluff of the warblade with that of the barbarian, what unbalancing things happen? Nothing that I can think of. On the other hand, swapping out class features is much more likely to make someone much less powerful.
I don't mean to pick on you, so don't feel like I am. However, will allowing entry for Mystic Theurge at Wizard 3/Cleric 1 be considerably unbalancing? Will changing the prerequisites for Ruby Knight Vindicator to allow followers of Nerull be considerably broken?

Not everyone is so good with storytelling that they can seemlessly change fluff without creating problems in the game world. A player who wants to run an eastern monk wandering the world setting up trades for silk might not make a lot of sense in a particular setting, especially one where the characters are exploring the uncharted east. One character who was raised at an advanced school of magic may begin bringing up questions in a quest where the heroes are trying to overthrow a world-destroying evil on their own.

Sure, there are people who are good enough at GMing to mix and match fluff to suit their purpose - just as there are people good enough at homebrew to mix and match class features to prevent overpowering. It just sounds like the average assumption is a DM perfectly capable of the first while completely incapable of the second. And to be honest, a campaign-breaking inconsistency in storyline is far worse to me that one character able to solo most encounters.

Milskidasith
2010-06-13, 10:53 PM
I don't mean to pick on you, so don't feel like I am. However, will allowing entry for Mystic Theurge at Wizard 3/Cleric 1 be considerably unbalancing? Will changing the prerequisites for Ruby Knight Vindicator to allow followers of Nerull be considerably broken?

Not everyone is so good with storytelling that they can seemlessly change fluff without creating problems in the game world. A player who wants to run an eastern monk wandering the world setting up trades for silk might not make a lot of sense in a particular setting, especially one where the characters are exploring the uncharted east. One character who was raised at an advanced school of magic may begin bringing up questions in a quest where the heroes are trying to overthrow a world-destroying evil on their own.

Sure, there are people who are good enough at GMing to mix and match fluff to suit their purpose - just as there are people good enough at homebrew to mix and match class features to prevent overpowering. It just sounds like the average assumption is a DM perfectly capable of the first while completely incapable of the second. And to be honest, a campaign-breaking inconsistency in storyline is far worse to me that one character able to solo most encounters.

What does this have to do with classes? You are saying players are bad at making certain concepts, which are purely fluff work, but there's no reason classes can't; if a secluded scholar type doesn't work, make the wizard a travelling scientist, or a man who picked up book nobody else could read, but, for X reason (relating to the campaign, feat choices, etc.) could, and learned the power within.

erikun
2010-06-13, 10:57 PM
What does this have to do with classes?
I am saying that if the player want a particular feat, power, or ability, then there is little reason not to simply modify the existing classes to allow the character to acquire the feat/ have the ability/ enter the prestige class without hassle. There is no need to take four different classes to qualify for a fifth, unless the DM is unsure of his ability to modify/homebrew.

Tavar
2010-06-13, 11:05 PM
Sure, there are people who are good enough at GMing to mix and match fluff to suit their purpose - just as there are people good enough at homebrew to mix and match class features to prevent overpowering. It just sounds like the average assumption is a DM perfectly capable of the first while completely incapable of the second. And to be honest, a campaign-breaking inconsistency in storyline is far worse to me that one character able to solo most encounters.

Most mechanical problems are difficult to see until you play with them for awhile, and even then the exact problem can be a bit difficult to determine.

On the other hand, story problems are relatively easy to see if you compare their story to the whole. If you're campaign doesn't have a 'mysterious east' analogue, then obviously a character from the 'mysterious east' analogue can't exist. If you don't have mage colleges, then obviously someone can't come from one of them.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-13, 11:20 PM
Stormwind fallacy, through and through. You are saying that you can't do good roleplaying along with optimized/highly dipped characters, which is fallacious, especially when plenty of PrCs "of X" have most of the flavor be the abilities which can easily be rewritten; why require the person be dedicated to Wu Pelorthulhu the Burning Hatesmodeus of Pun Pun when the PrC doesn't have any abilities really specific to him?

There is a vast difference between believing something contributes to a general trend and supposing a "can't do" which is not what I'm actually suggesting. A three man party consisting of a wizard, druid, and cleric all single class can be highly optimized without raising any of the issues of multi-classing sorts of issues can bring to the table. And be easily RPed out the wazoo.

The two are related but by no means identical and the Stormwind fallacy is rather simplistic as far as arguments go for a game with as many potential elements as D&D. There are cases where you have to optimize going back to when Gygax was playing it with his friends, designing it as things went along, and the whole thing was Nintendo Hard.

This is not a matter of absolutes but of degrees. I believe my rule of three gets the best of all worlds allowing ample choice while still ensuring that characters are discernible concepts not collections of mechanics. Its not applicable for all situations obviously, but then not every game is the same.



As for fluff differences: Classes are not fluff. The classes are the mechanics behind them.

And here's where we just plain disagree. Classes are fluff.

I do not believe in your interpretation of class levels. I believe they do represent a discernible portion of fluff about your character that tells certain things about your character's background. It gives a general framework for your education and/or origin. Not everything, but something and within limits.

(Note there are different systems that handle things other ways. Lots classless systems out there, and they are fine too. But when you have a class system make it meaningful basically)


If the player only wants the class abilities, then rewriting the fluff is perfectly reasonable; look at all the varied sources spellcasters get for their abilities, when the only mechanical differences between them are recovery mechanics and whether they are prepared or spontaneous.

If you are rewriting the fluff to let say a deity specific class be viable for another deity thats one thing. Common sense, degrees not absolutes, there are places when things make sense.

When you are doing it to allow you only a few choice mechanics then you're removing enough distinction why not just ask about homebrewing a feat-chain instead. Since you're just rewriting things to get an ability. Lets face it more then 3 classes and you simply can't really progress in them all short of epic levels. Twenty divided by four and all... so its dabbling for a mechanic. And its always seemed to me that true side shows are what feats are for. Or even templates, I'd consider say a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin with one of the Hide in Plain Sight granting templates a potential exception to my rule over dabbling in Shadowdancer.

On a side rant I get terribly annoyed at how many sources of magic/spellcasting D&D has. Perhaps not, but any campaign involving more then a bare handful has the same type of identity issues that created this thread. A good number of them though are specifically distinct enough to matter, but the collective I think demonstrates the sorts of issue I'm getting at. Too much of something and you erode the underlying concept's meaning and distinction. For my tastes, have say what the players choose represent essentially all of it for the setting. Something, magic needs its own sub-considerations to any larger issues.

okpokalypse
2010-06-13, 11:26 PM
As mentioned in the other thread - I dislike it because it promotes pretty uneven growth and results in ugly builds, as well as undermining the flavor that should be associated with several of the PrCs, many of which are supposed to belong to organizations with trademark abilities. 3E, unlike Saga, multiclasses well almost by chance rather than design. I feel like if you're requiring more than 3-4 classes, we should talk and homebrew something instead.

I agree wholeheartedly. As a DM, I like to ask player to present rough build ideas to L12 or so and how they perceive the PC going. If they have more classes than levels / 3 I'll immediately talk about a custom prestige class that will meet their needs. Similarly, as a player, if I find myself needing 4+ Class dips to meet a concept (not a build per se, but a mechanical and character concept), then I'll ask to customize.

A perfect example of a concept needing a custom re-do is the Ranger (w/ Variant) / Scout / Cleric (Celerity, Luck) / Barbarian (w/ Variant) / Fighter / Dervish who's meant to be the dual-wielding, skirmishing (improved) and travel devoted ultra-mobile (60' Min) and full-attack charging tracker/trapfinder guy :).

In the end, what we wound up making was a customized Ranger-type with a 3/4 BAB Rate, Skirmish, Trapfinding and Mobile Full Attack Actions (limited use per day) - less the animal companion and spells. Oh, and not with the Combat Style for Bows option. Basically it's a dedicated 2Wp Skirmisher.

In the end, it does everything the other class did, and does it much cleaner and with FAR less confusion.

Milskidasith
2010-06-13, 11:29 PM
There is a vast difference between believing something contributes to a general trend and supposing a "can't do" which is not what I'm actually suggesting. A three man party consisting of a wizard, druid, and cleric all single class can be highly optimized without raising any of the issues of multi-classing sorts of issues can bring to the table. And be easily RPed out the wazoo.

The two are related but by no means identical and the Stormwind fallacy is rather simplistic as far as arguments go for a game with as many potential elements as D&D. There are cases where you have to optimize going back to when Gygax was playing it with his friends, designing it as things went along, and the whole thing was Nintendo Hard.

This is not a matter of absolutes but of degrees. I believe my rule of three gets the best of all worlds allowing ample choice while still ensuring that characters are discernible concepts not collections of mechanics. Its not applicable for all situations obviously, but then not every game is the same.

You are fooling yourself. Your argument is, boiled down, "people can't make a character involving lots of classes without sacrificing roleplay." That's the stormwind fallacy, or a subset of it, anyway (since the general fallacy is "optimization hinders roleplay" where yours is "playing multiple classes hinders roleplay.")




And here's where we just plain disagree. Classes are fluff.

I do not believe in your interpretation of class levels. I believe they do represent a discernible portion of fluff about your character that tells certain things about your character's background. It gives a general framework for your education and/or origin. Not everything, but something and within limits.

(Note there are different systems that handle things other ways. Lots classless systems out there, and they are fine too. But when you have a class system make it meaningful basically)

No, classes are not fluff. They are quite literally the numbers and abilities. That's the most crunch thing in any part of D&D. Classes have associated fluff, yes, but the classes themselves are the numbers. Saying classes are fluff is like saying feats are fluff, or items are fluff, or any other pure-crunch thing is fluff.




If you are rewriting the fluff to let say a deity specific class be viable for another deity thats one thing. Common sense, degrees not absolutes, there are places when things make sense.

When you are doing it to allow you only a few choice mechanics then you're removing enough distinction why not just ask about homebrewing a feat-chain instead. Since you're just rewriting things to get an ability. Lets face it more then 3 classes and you simply can't really progress in them all short of epic levels. Twenty divided by four and all... so its dabbling for a mechanic. And its always seemed to me that true side shows are what feats are for. Or even templates, I'd consider say a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin with one of the Hide in Plain Sight granting templates a potential exception to my rule over dabbling in Shadowdancer.

This is, again, an odd interpretation. Classes are a metagame concept. A character, in game, doesn't advance as "Wizard 5/Fighter 5" he advances as a spellcaster who can fight (poorly). You can still advance in game even if you aren't taking tons of levels in different classes, especially when you advance the classes in a way that does, in fact, increase power (the point of pretty much all dipping). Gishes advance about as well in fighting and spellcasting as a normal character, as an example.

balistafreak
2010-06-13, 11:37 PM
Personally, I don't think of characters in terms of classes but "routines". If X then Y.

For example, I recently discussed a character that went something like this.

"So I have this character idea, whose deity is letting him produce swords as his shtick. Kind of like Shirou/Archer from Fate//Stay Night."

"Okay."

"Every day after his prayers, he gets damage reduction, the ability to shoot blades from his hands, the ability to produce blades to attack with in melee, and the ability to ring himself with blades as an AoE effect. It lasts until right before his prayers the next day. Oh, and he has some lower-level divine casting to spare too."

"Sounds like a lot of homebrew."

"Nope. DMM Cleric, persisting Cloud of Knives, Ice Axe, Channeled Divine Shield, and Ring of Blades."

"DMM Cleric is OP."

"Ah, but if I didn't tell you that, would you have been willing to allow it in a game?"

"... yes."

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-13, 11:46 PM
So...what does that have to do with classes? And how would it break your rules? Cleric/swordsage/Adapted Ruby Knight Vindicator(seriously, the only thing you have to adapt there is the deity it's devoted to, there's literally nothing in the mechanics that's related to the deity). You could also probably do something like Rogue/[Paladin or Cleric]/Appropriate Shadowbane class.

Seriously, your complaint amounts to "I don't like ridiculous backstories, so having multiple classes is bad." I really don't see a connection.

I see it as describing a Knight, Ninja, Cleric, Assassin. Though the Knight and Assassin are somewhat mutable choices, thats behind the point. Fitting it into my ruleset by dropping a class leave something out as far as asking "so what did you learn from them" sorts of questions. Meeting my rules would be down grade a portion from a shaping event in their life to an adventure they had one time. Like doing it all as a Rogue Cleric who only had existing skills with two of the groups, and the third was largely honorary or because he had good stats to start.

And I see classes as closely linked to backstory, ergo more classes the more the backstory becomes implausible. Or is likely too, but I have small faith in it being pulled off in a statistical sense. Should something be the exception it can be considered, as an exception.

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 12:19 AM
I just thought I'd chime in and add in another vote that "class" is a meta-game concept. Even the name of the class doesn't mean squat to the game or the character. If you walk up to people and say "Pleased to meet you. I'm Galstaff the Barbarian", I'm going to shake my head a bit (at least on the inside). Probably doubly so if you just said, "The Fighter" or "The Rogue". Who would actually identify themselves like that seriously?

The best "Samurai" I've ever had in a tabletop game was a Barbarian 1 / Rogue 3 / Fighter X with Cloak Dance. Look on his character sheet and you see Barb/Fight/Rog. Watch him in game and you see him as the swift and agile swordsman who duels with speed and precision. An Iaijutsu duelist, and loyal retainer to an assassinated lord; adventuring to gather forces to retake his master's keep from the enemies who overthrew him.

One of my players wanted to play a "Ninja" themed character. In this case "ninja" means a stealthful trickster who employs hand-to-hand and weapon-based martial arts with mysterious magic such as diving through shadows, or vanishing from sight, etc. Ended up statting him out with no less than about 8 different classes, and the Ninja-Spy prestige class. Dips were the name of his game; mostly. His character functioned PERFECTLY just as he wanted. Did anyone in game ever say "This is my friend the rogue/barbarian/duskblade/sorcerer/ninja-spy"? No. They said "That's Korin. We feel safe with him watching our backs; though our enemies can't say the same."

Just my two coppers.

erikun
2010-06-14, 12:22 AM
On the other hand, story problems are relatively easy to see if you compare their story to the whole. If you're campaign doesn't have a 'mysterious east' analogue, then obviously a character from the 'mysterious east' analogue can't exist. If you don't have mage colleges, then obviously someone can't come from one of them.
This tends to depend on the proficiency of the DM to detect and avoid conflicts. Not every DM can spot the problems that a mage college would produce, and most would allow one in a backstory unless the campaign is intentionally spellcaster-lite. The problem occurs when the players want to head off to the college for high-level assistance when the problem becomes noteworthy worldwide.

A good DM would be able to wrap it into the campaign, allowing the players to journey to find a ruined college. The headmaster has gone missing, half the faculty was possessed by the evil and killed off the other half. The characters find ruined buildings, leftover summonings from the fighting, and the few students and faculty who managed to remain alive throughout the chaos. The character get reconnected to the overall plot of the campaign (again), along with gaining allies, personal reasons to continue, and possibly resources if they feel like exploring what's left of the school.

An inexperienced DM might give the response, "You can't go there. It's too far. You just... can't." They may just simply not allow the party to attempt.

--

As for your Barbarian/Warblade idea, I would need to know the character concept to know how exactly to proceed. After all, "Barbarian with Warblade" doesn't really say much or give me an idea of what would be a desired change to the classes in question.

A martially-minded berserker, who has trained in combat and flies into fury upon entering a fight? Barbarian, keep Rage, remove other class features, give Fighter feats every three levels. Perhaps every two levels, depending on the relative strength of the other party members.

A fighter who charges into battle, warding off blows in melee and terrifying the enemy with his ferocity? Warblade with access to Stone Dragon, Desert Wind, and whatever other schools are appropriate for the concept.

A character with both rage and maneuvers for whatever reason? Perhaps for qualifications to an interesting prestige class, or because you want to have fun with raging? Create a new Rage Stance which gives the benefits of the standard Rage but counts as one of your maneuvers. Create a Greater Rage Stance and a Mighty Rage Stance to go with it. Actually, that might make a fun Unarmed Swordsage/Frostreaver.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 12:26 AM
You are fooling yourself. Your argument is, boiled down, "people can't make a character involving lots of classes without sacrificing roleplay." That's the stormwind fallacy, or a subset of it, anyway (since the general fallacy is "optimization hinders roleplay" where yours is "playing multiple classes hinders roleplay.")

To me that is a notable difference between two. However I feel it is still inaccurately representing my views as you continue to suggest a more absolute relationship then I do.

To demonstrate: 50% of character with 1-2 classes have crappy backstories and poor design, 60% of characters with 3 classes have crappy backstories, and 75% of those with 4 have crappy backstories, so on and so forth. (percentages made up on the spot, of course)

An important difference is that I don't presume it must be so which is what you are supposing I do. However as a matter of advice and general practice I grow increasingly suspicious because the possibility rises and is a still legitimate matter of concern.



No, classes are not fluff. They are quite literally the numbers and abilities. That's the most crunch thing in any part of D&D. Classes have associated fluff, yes, but the classes themselves are the numbers. Saying classes are fluff is like saying feats are fluff, or items are fluff, or any other pure-crunch thing is fluff.


And here's where we just plain disagree. Classes are fluff.

To be more precise I don't view the associated fluff as simply that. Its integral to the roleplaying to pay attention to the fluff attached to things. Or you are playing a different game then me which might as well not bother with classes and go for something like a points system. I don't even dislike other systems, but I don't want to play that when I play D&D

Furthermore feats certainly have a fluff component to them, less then class but present. Items much less so given the preference for lots of nameless items, but its not like any every part has to have fluff anyways.


This is, again, an odd interpretation. Classes are a metagame concept. A character, in game, doesn't advance as "Wizard 5/Fighter 5" he advances as a spellcaster who can fight (poorly). You can still advance in game even if you aren't taking tons of levels in different classes, especially when you advance the classes in a way that does, in fact, increase power (the point of pretty much all dipping). Gishes advance about as well in fighting and spellcasting as a normal character, as an example.

I would say classes are both meta-game and in-game concept. A Wizard is title much like Doctor is in our world, and suggests a lot of the same things. Obviously this varies some depending on specifics, but I'm prepared to say is there generally.

Though why pick Gish, no problems there. Two classes leading to a PrC to better advance it as a hybrid. Or just a dip for whatever reasons. Its still within limits I like.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-14, 12:30 AM
And is a Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin/Shadowsun Ninja (meta-game concept) any less of a "ninja" (in-game fluff) than an actual Ninja?

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 12:37 AM
A Wizard is title much like Doctor is in our world, and suggests a lot of the same things. Obviously this varies some depending on specifics, but I'm prepared to say is there generally.

Tell that to the creepy old "Hedge Wizard" in the forest. By the way, he's actually a 6th level Sorcerer 4 / Adept 2.

EDIT: Also to the local lord's Champion. He's a 7th level Fighter 4 / Paladin 3.

Also to the Samurai in my last post. He's a fighter / barbarian / rogue.

Also to the Dwarven Ogreslayers of Undermount. They're barbarians, actually; though some have a level or two of Bard, or Clerics; and they sing the songs of Muradin.

Or the Rogues of Vengeport. Humorously, most of them are beguilers; though a few actually fighter / bards.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 12:42 AM
No, classes are not fluff. They are quite literally the numbers and abilities. That's the most crunch thing in any part of D&D. Classes have associated fluff, yes, but the classes themselves are the numbers. Saying classes are fluff is like saying feats are fluff, or items are fluff, or any other pure-crunch thing is fluff.

Though I don't press the issue when playing in a game were that opinion prevails, I profoundly disagree as a matter of principle. The basic purpose of a class is to serve as an abstracted label for a character's proficiencies. If they were merely mechanical collections of abilities, they would serve no purpose: a gated classless system would function better (and examples were readily available at the time 3e and 3.5 were designed). The underlying issue is that people seem to be trying to play D&D like it were such a classless system while other people are deliberately fond of the idea of a class-based system.

They represent a reasonable simulacrum for the character's profession (though that term is probably insufficiently narrow), and the abilities are an abstraction of the capacities expected of that "profession." And there is a difference between abstracted elements and mechanical meta-game elements.

If you want a swordsage's abilities with a barbarian's fluff, fine: write up the fluff justifying the abilities and give it a name. We'll label it as a variant class. Might tweak the skill list a little. (Actually, ToB's a interesting example, since they are more or less direct replacements: I might just label it Barbarian).



According to my excellent dictionary, the origin of the saying is from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

That's the earliest example we have of it being used as a metaphor, yes. But he was specifically referencing an accident from period siege warfare to compare it to how Hamlet was setting R&G up so that they would bring about their own downfall. But the metaphor worked because the audience could be expected to know that siege engineers did occasionally get hoisted by their petards when they screwed up.

Incidentally, petard comes from the french word for fart.


And is a Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin/Shadowsun Ninja (meta-game concept) any less of a "ninja" (in-game fluff) than an actual Ninja?
Yes, if Swordsage, Shadow Dancer, Assassin, and Shadowsun Ninja have fluff assigned to them in the setting.

huttj509
2010-06-14, 12:45 AM
One possibility I haven't seen mentioned is from the perspective of the prospective DM.

If, as a DM, you are trying to gauge the characters power, abilities, and such so as to tailor combats/encounters to not stonewall/slaughter them unintentionally, simpler character builds are easier to follow.

Now, if this comes about as the character is built up starting from low level, it's not as difficult to follow the development of the character abilities, and get a feel as the campaign goes along for the power level of the characters. The power level may ebb and flow, maybe lower before a prestige class can be entered into, then stronger, but in my experience it doesn't really change drastically enough to be too much of an issue.

What I see as leading to a knee jerk reaction is when players are starting at, say, 15th level, and pitching their characters to the DM:

Player 1: I'm going straight X 15.
DM: Ok.
Player 2: I'm looking for a bit of a blend. Gish type. X 3/Y 2/PrC 10.
DM: Ok, I see where you're headed with that.
Player 3: I've got an X 1/Y 2/Z 2/PrC1 4/PrC2 6
DM: Um, what? You lost me there.
Player 4: I've got a front line fighter, sorta divine champion, with some minor arcane spells, and a little sneak attack ability. Build is X 1/Y 2/Z 2/PrC1 4/PrC2 6.
DM: Ok, I think can follow the general idea there.
Player 3: But that's the same build I just said, and that lost you!
DM: Yes, but Player 4 didn't hit me in the face with a list of classes and expect me to figure out the overall shape of the character from there on my own.


In that situation, the error player 3 makes is not necessarily multiclassing too much, but focusing too much on the details first, when it can help to have a general idea of the character, then fill in details to follow. If someone's presenting a character for your campaign, do you find it easier to follow along with a list of assorted abilities, or have it preceded by an overview of the character's role/strengths/etc, THEN have the details presented to you.

Edit: I guess it had been brought up in the form of "we don't call him x/y/z/w/q/phi, we call him Bob" comments, but realizing that some people may simply present as the class conglomeration first, and others don't, could help explain the disparity in whether people think that there's a problem/stigma with many-class builds.

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 12:53 AM
To me that is a notable difference between two. However I feel it is still inaccurately representing my views as you continue to suggest a more absolute relationship then I do.

To demonstrate: 50% of character with 1-2 classes have crappy backstories and poor design, 60% of characters with 3 classes have crappy backstories, and 75% of those with 4 have crappy backstories, so on and so forth. (percentages made up on the spot, of course)

An important difference is that I don't presume it must be so which is what you are supposing I do. However as a matter of advice and general practice I grow increasingly suspicious because the possibility rises and is a still legitimate matter of concern.

In my experience, 50% of characters who don't PrC out are played by bad roleplayers, 20% of those with a PrC are played by bad roleplayers, and I've never found a bad roleplayer who dipped everywhere. Stats made up on the spot.

Subjective experiences aren't a good argument tool, especially when you, as you said, made them up on the spot. You still haven't differentiated yourself from the Stormwind fallacy. You are saying "doing mechanical thing X makes you bad at roleplaying." Yes, it's not about optimization, but it's in the same vein, and if you really disagree it falls under the Stormwind fallacy, it's some related thing that's almost identical and just as untrue.





And here's where we just plain disagree. Classes are fluff.

To be more precise I don't view the associated fluff as simply that. Its integral to the roleplaying to pay attention to the fluff attached to things. Or you are playing a different game then me which might as well not bother with classes and go for something like a points system. I don't even dislike other systems, but I don't want to play that when I play D&D

Furthermore feats certainly have a fluff component to them, less then class but present. Items much less so given the preference for lots of nameless items, but its not like any every part has to have fluff anyways.

OK, please tell me where there is fluff in this:

+1 BAB every level
D12 hit die
Good X saves
Ability to cast spells
Maneuver progression
Bonus feat from class list
Turn undead
Sneak attack

That's crunch. Those are elements that make up classes (not all, obviously). The fluff is the classes fluff; the mechanics, rarely, if ever, are so directly tied to the fluff they couldn't just be refluffed.


I would say classes are both meta-game and in-game concept. A Wizard is title much like Doctor is in our world, and suggests a lot of the same things. Obviously this varies some depending on specifics, but I'm prepared to say is there generally.

The DMG specifically advises that classes and levels should be a metagame concept, and for good reason. How do you differentiate a favored soul from a sorcerer if they pick from spells that are both on their list? How do you tell the difference between an honorable cleric of X god who has a martial bent and an honorable paladin of the same god? How do you tell the difference between a Warblade and a Fighter (besides the warblade being more competent)? An unarmed swordsage and a monk? Those don't even require refluffing and they're already impossible to figure out in game by anybody but very high level characters who understand all their abilities.


Though why pick Gish, no problems there. Two classes leading to a PrC to better advance it as a hybrid. Or just a dip for whatever reasons. Its still within limits I like.

Gishes are rarely effective with just two classes and a PrC, because you won't get to 20 with that. A good gish would probably include a dip in spellsword, some abjurant champion, maybe Jade Phoenix Mage if you start with an IL base, Eldritch Knight if you don't mind losing one caster level, etc, and all of them advance the same exact concept without needing refluffing. With refluffing, you can easily have even more, and, in game, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a member of any of the PrCs I just listed.

Again: Refluffing works. Classes already share archetypes, and you can easily stretch the bounds. It doesn't change the system; a monk is still a monk if you're an eastern style martial artist or a thug that's really good at using the environment to your advantage. A wizard is still a wizard if you study in a library or travel the world doing magical experiments as you go (think colony age scientists doing travelling shows for electricity, except with magic instead of a slight understanding of Lyden jars and magnetism). A warblade can be a mercenary, a man who practiced for years in a fighting school, a natural savant paving his own unique style. A sorcerer could be the product of a family pact with the devil, breeding with the fey, powers granted to the familial line by a dragon for sparing its life. A cleric could be an actual cleric performing services for his god, a man devoted to a cause, a travelling evangelist, or a holy warrior for his god. A barbarian could be a man from a tribal village, a psychotic bastard, or a normal guy who just sometimes... snaps... when his friends get hurt.

All of those are refluffing away from the basic intent of the class, and none of them are hard to explain at all.

Hell, I could even refluff all of those together into one class, or at least a decent one. A warblade/monk/cleric/barbarian could be...

A natural savant with his weapon who...
Grew up on the streets and learned to use common implements and his fists to fight in a pragmatic way (OK, the monk isn't so good at that, but you get my point)...
Who is dedicated to making sure that people have good lives unlike his, especially to helping children...
Who goes into an incredible fury when somebody blatently disregards the lives of children.

Boom; four refluffed base classes that still have fluff that matches the ability, all of which work together. I could even do wizards or sorcerers as well, but they're harder because martial classes are incredibly pointless with them save gished up PrCs. Well, the build I posted was crap as well, but you get my point.

Hell, I could even make a character that *seems* like he's another class. A naturally angry man with great strength, constitution, and force of will who goes around hacking people while wearing mithral chain mail and occasionally preforming insane feats with just his weapon (Looks like Barbarian with maybe some warblade or swordsage for his special attacks).

He's actually just a really crotchety abjurant champion who wears magically enchanted chainmail (heavy fortification and other abilities), with high base stats and fortification armor (his city is a lot of rogues who try to backstab, and he acts as if such sneak attacks actually hurt more), who uses invisible mage armor and shield spells to deflect armor and other gishy buffs, occasionally swinging his weapon around while casting spells with his other hand hidden in his pocket, casting other invisible spells so it seems like, say, his weapon hit a line of people in a row with pure cutting air when he really just cast Chain Lightning.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-14, 01:01 AM
Yes, if Swordsage, Shadow Dancer, Assassin, and Shadowsun Ninja have fluff assigned to them in the setting.
And if I just called myself a Ninja but had certain abilities granted from those classes? Even if those classes have organizations with secret techniques that allow those abilities, surely an epic ninja-y type character would be more than capable of infiltrating and stealing those secrets, no? Would make for a pretty damn bad-ass character, actually. That sounds pretty cool.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-14, 01:03 AM
And if I just called myself a Ninja but had certain abilities granted from those classes? Even if those classes have organizations with secret techniques that allow those abilities, surely an epic ninja-y type character would be more than capable of infiltrating and stealing those secrets, no? Would make for a pretty damn bad-ass character, actually. That sounds pretty cool.

There is also the possibility that a member from each of those organizations served to teach this example character in some shape or another, explaining why he only has the introductory abilities of each, no?

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 01:06 AM
Tell that to the creepy old "Hedge Wizard" in the forest. By the way, he's actually a 6th level Sorcerer 4 / Adept 2.

EDIT: Also to the local lord's Champion. He's a 7th level Fighter 4 / Paladin 3.

Also to the Samurai in my last post. He's a fighter / barbarian / rogue.

Also to the Dwarven Ogreslayers of Undermount. They're barbarians, actually; though some have a level or two of Bard, or Clerics; and they sing the songs of Muradin.

Or the Rogues of Vengeport. Humorously, most of them are beguilers; though a few actually fighter / bards.

Two classes, two classes, two classes.... I don't see a problem since its only excessive multi-classing that bothers me.

Except maybe that samurai there, but thats something I don't think means enough to make a class. As WOTC hasn't made something resembling Samurai its anything goes really. Nevermind there's classes having meaning then there's just calling it something different because its Eastern which I've always found a bit silly myself.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-14, 01:10 AM
Wizards has printed at least two Samurai classes, one in Oriental Adventures (which is therefore somewhat unknown, being in a rarely used campaign setting), and the other in Completely Warrior (which is just hideously bad).

My question is, why do you care if my "samurai" character is a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Wu Jen versus a single-classed Samurai?

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 01:18 AM
Two classes, two classes, two classes.... I don't see a problem since its only excessive multi-classing that bothers me.

Except maybe that samurai there, but thats something I don't think means enough to make a class. As WOTC hasn't made something resembling Samurai its anything goes really. Nevermind there's classes having meaning then there's just calling it something different because its Eastern which I've always found a bit silly myself.

Except that's not what you said. I was addressing the fact you said the name and fluff of the class means something; and it doesn't. Sorcerer, wizard, mystic, and so forth might be terms in the game world but there's likely not much difference between a Wizard-wizard, or a Shadowcaster-wizard, or an Adept-wizard from a role-playing standpoint.

You said one thing, which I addressed, and then you addressed my post as though I was discussing something else.

I also mentioned another character, who wanted a ninja-ish character and had somewhere around 8 character classes and a lot of dipping to get the exact flavor he wanted. No mention of him in your post.

How about this one. I had a friend who played a wizard/cleric/rogue/ranger/assassin who was around 14th level in a Red Hand of Doom game. He made use of all those classes to flesh out his character as he desired. Interestingly, he took them to represent certain aspects of learning during his adventure - often deciding what to progress in at the time of leveling rather than determining a build beforehand.

Also, WotC has released TWO samurai classes. Oriental Adventures which is very similar to Fighter; and Complete Warriors which is very similar to fecal matter roasted over an open flame.

But my friend played Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian; and would fit very closely with the theme that the Crane-clan samurai had in Oriental Adventures; should you find yourself with access to the book to check it out.

Coidzor
2010-06-14, 01:28 AM
Soras: Ahem. 90% of everything is pure ****. It's the 10% that isn't that we protect, strive for, long for, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law)

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 01:36 AM
Yes, it's not about optimization, but it's in the same vein, and if you really disagree it falls under the Stormwind fallacy, it's some related thing that's almost identical and just as untrue.
That statment seems to be based on almost as poor an idea of what constitutes a fallacy as Stormwind used when he made his actual argument. Actually, since he started off on the right foot, possibly a worse one.

Stormwinds formally presented argument was that a direct link between CharOp and role playing couldn't be proved. He demonstrated that quite well: in fact, I would say he did so with as much rigor as can be reasonably expected of the topic (with the notable exception that he didn't make any effort to deal with the possibility of a positive correlation).

He then made a rather extreme unjustified leap: he treated this as a demonstration that the two elements do not ever run counter.

There are plenty of indirect avenues for the elements to influence each other. And it is a near certainty that it is possible to take an action that diminishes role play and improves mechanical play. It's also a near certainty that you can take an action that improves both. And either type of action may be motivated by one element, the other, or both. The fact that mechanics and RP have no correlation does not mean that they have no interaction. The interaction is, in fact, the point.

The idea that that RP and CharOp never run in opposition is beyond what Stormwind's argument demonstrated. The idea that mechanics in general and RP never run counter is beyond what he even attempted to demonstrate.


OK, please tell me where there is fluff in this:

+1 BAB every level
D12 hit die
Good X saves
Ability to cast spells
Maneuver progression
Bonus feat from class list
Turn undead
Sneak attack

That's crunch. Those are elements that make up classes (not all, obviously). The fluff is the classes fluff; the mechanics, rarely, if ever, are so directly tied to the fluff they couldn't just be refluffed.

I wouldn't call that a class. I would call it a list of abilities. It can be a class when you give a description as to why those abilities follow from the general archetypal character concept (base) or refinement there of (PrC).

You seem to be trying to separate the archetypal idea from the class. For me, that idea is the purpose of the class.


And if I just called myself a Ninja but had certain abilities granted from those classes? Even if those classes have organizations with secret techniques that allow those abilities, surely an epic ninja-y type character would be more than capable of infiltrating and stealing those secrets, no? Would make for a pretty damn bad-ass character, actually. That sounds pretty cool.

If I were DMing, I would simply have you make a class or large PRC and mesh the abilities together. We'll call it a "shadow thief" or something. Heck, we might just call it a Ninja and replace the base class as a house rule.

Unless you're playing significantly above the power level I usually game at, it probably won't even matter if we do a really poor job of balancing (but then again, I have two players whose characters I would describe in these forums as Tier 4 clerics). For me, having the class and concept well linked is more important than a level of precision in balance that is unlikely to even be noticed at the table.

Tavar
2010-06-14, 01:43 AM
So...how does that inhibit multiclassing? Archetypes have large areas of overlap, so why is focusing on these overlaps bad? And how does 2 classes having the same archetype prevent them from being treated the same in-game?

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 01:52 AM
That statment seems to be based on almost as poor an idea of what constitutes a fallacy as Stormwind used when he made his actual argument. Actually, since he started off on the right foot, possibly a worse one.

Stormwinds formally presented argument was that a direct link between CharOp and role playing couldn't be proved. He demonstrated that quite well: in fact, I would say he did so with as much rigor as can be reasonably expected of the topic (with the notable exception that he didn't make any effort to deal with the possibility of a positive correlation).

He then made a rather extreme unjustified leap: he treated this as a demonstration that the two elements do not ever run counter.

There are plenty of indirect avenues for the elements to influence each other. And it is a near certainty that it is possible to take an action that diminishes role play and improves mechanical play. It's also a near certainty that you can take an action that improves both. And either type of action may be motivated by one element, the other, or both. The fact that mechanics and RP have no correlation does not mean that they have no interaction. The interaction is, in fact, the point.

The idea that that RP and CharOp never run in opposition is beyond what Stormwind's argument demonstrated. The idea that mechanics in general and RP never run counter is beyond what he even attempted to demonstrate.

OK? We're not disagreeing here. I have no clue what your point is. The Stormwind Fallacy is the fallacy (a false dillema) that optimization hinders roleplaying, named after the person (Stormwind, natch) who argued that they were independent. The argument I am disagreeing with is a specific subtype of that false dillema; dip based optimization is not detrimental to roleplay.




I wouldn't call that a class. I would call it a list of abilities. It can be a class when you give a description as to why those abilities follow from the general archetypal character concept (base) or refinement there of (PrC).

You seem to be trying to separate the archetypal idea from the class. For me, that idea is the purpose of the class.

Classes are archetypes, yes. But they're far more mutable than the base description is. Monks don't all have to be eastern warriors, clerics don't all have to be devoted priests of their god, paladins don't all have to be radardins, wizards don't all have to be low con low dex low str wimps studying in an ivory tower, sorcerers don't all have to be chaotic part dragons, etc.

The thing is, you can refluff past the specifics.

Here's about how broad I see the classes archetypes:

Rogue: Sneaky skillmonkey
Wizard: Arcane Caster, learned
Cleric: Faith (god or ideal) based Divine Caster
Sorcerer: Arcane Caster, natural
Druid: Nature based divine caster
Fighter: Fighter... this is the ur "no fluff, just hit stuff" class (not so much in fixes).
Barbarian: Fighter with hidden strength (from rage, fierce determination, the ability to break their own limits using X, whatever).
Paladin: The only class with specifics, due to the fluff being a mechanical requirement. Even so, it's only a strongly moral warrior type with powers granted because of that.
Ranger: Slightly skillful fighting type
Monk: (sub optimal) fighting type based on quick movement and lots of hits (flurry is a standard in games I play in).
Psion: Guy using mental powers on their own
Psychic Warrior: Guy using mental powers to enhance his own fighting
Soulknife: Guy who never understood the concept of buying weapons.
Bard: Charming guy

Yes, breaking out of those archetypes could be silly, although you could *easily* refluff abilities to fit (a warrior type could be a cleric, by simple refluffing of buff spells to heroic will, for instance), but within these archetypes, you can easily mix and match classes. As Tavar said, these can overlap.

For instance...

Barbarian/monk/cleric/paladin/Fighter/Rogue (not possible mechanically, I know)

A man very devoted to god X (Paladin, Cleric), who fights with surprising agility (monk) and pragmatism (Rogue, Fighter [feats]), and can draw upon his faith to grant him great power when he needs it most (Barbarian, Cleric).

Granted, that's not mechanically useful, but see? That didn't even take but once sentence to justify mechanically. You don't need to fluff it so he studied at a church, the assassin's institute, the academy of getting power attack as a bonus feat, a dojo, and a tribal village while being initiated as a paladin later... you just need to give reasons why he has all the powers he gives that are at tied to the class archetype.

I could probably refluff this same as a thief with the cleric being totally refluffed as his luck at avoiding damage, with TN/NE paladin variant and monk justifying his movement abilities... and it would still be justified mechanically! I can refluff an honorable paladin and a thief, using basic archetypes and the same crazy dip combo! I'm not limited at all!

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 02:17 AM
So...how does that inhibit multiclassing? Archetypes have large areas of overlap, so why is focusing on these overlaps bad? And how does 2 classes having the same archetype prevent them from being treated the same in-game?

Because it's aparsimonious. The class is no longer being used to represent the archetype: instead, the abilities of the classes are.

Again, you're delving into an area that would be better handled by a classless system. Classless systems have many significant advantages, particularly in dealing with complex and precise mechanical character concepts. When that's the order of the day, I use them if possible.

If I want to replicate specific abilities of a Ninja for combat purposes, I'll play GURPS: it will allow me to invest into the specific aspects of a Ninja I want to emulate.

If I wanted to play a class with abilities that are generally abstracted from the the whole of "Ninja skills," I would play D&D.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 02:18 AM
Subjective experiences aren't a good argument tool, especially when you, as you said, made them up on the spot. You still haven't differentiated yourself from the Stormwind fallacy. You are saying "doing mechanical thing X makes you bad at roleplaying." Yes, it's not about optimization, but it's in the same vein, and if you really disagree it falls under the Stormwind fallacy, it's some related thing that's almost identical and just as untrue.

You seemed to have missed that the numbers don' matter because I merely used them to illustrate a trend or escalation, though I'd probably agree that playing out a PrC is going to be better played all around then straight multi-classing because they exist to make that option valid. Two classes is that uncomfortable lurch, unless the second is itself a PrC or dip.

Now then moving on the problem with your use of Stormwind, indeed its entire existence as a fallacy in the first place, is that because you are using to suggest the opposite. That optimizing and other mechanical shenanigans cannot make one bad a role-playing. Or otherwise suggesting that those out there who play to "win" the game via optimizing and building unbeatable characters do not exist. We wouldn't have the term munchkin if there weren't that sort of thing.

That something is not true all the time does not mean it is never anything to be concerned about.




OK, please tell me where there is fluff in this:

+1 BAB every level: Skill with making things connect
D12 hit die: Really really tough, possibly big for your race too
Good X saves: Indominable Will, etc
Ability to cast spells: Depending on the flavor natural magical ability, intensive study, etc
Maneuver progression: Charles Atlas Superpowers :smalltongue:
Bonus feat from class list: Feats arising from training
Turn undead: A divine outpouring of faith
Sneak attack: What it says on the tin

I suspect you are using fluff more restrictively then me.

I mean it to represent every in-character bit of description, what it means to the characters that don't know what d20s are unless its a tavern dice game to gamble on.


That's crunch. Those are elements that make up classes (not all, obviously). The fluff is the classes fluff; the mechanics, rarely, if ever, are so directly tied to the fluff they couldn't just be refluffed.

If I may be cynical for a moment I suspect the term "fluff" would arose from exactly the sort of approach I don't care for as shorthand for "stuff that doesn't matter" as to me refluffing should be fairly rare.


The DMG specifically advises that classes and levels should be a metagame concept, and for good reason. How do you differentiate a favored soul from a sorcerer if they pick from spells that are both on their list? How do you tell the difference between an honorable cleric of X god who has a martial bent and an honorable paladin of the same god?

A sorceror and favored soul would speak different gibberish words as befitting their different sources of magic. In the cast of the divine it may well vary a touch depending on the deity in question. Arcane and divine magic are at least well established if not as separate ideas as could be wished for.

For that matter a martial cleric and a paladin would not have the same connection to their deity, the latter leaning less on specific prayers and for that matter not having nearly as many. Degree of how much one channels their deity's power I'll say.

These don't seem particularly close pairs to me. Personally the only real snag for me is Paladins casting spells, but I've previously noted I'm annoyed at how many ways to use magic there are so I'll move on.


How do you tell the difference between a Warblade and a Fighter (besides the warblade being more competent)? An unarmed swordsage and a monk? Those don't even require refluffing and they're already impossible to figure out in game by anybody but very high level characters who understand all their abilities.

One has good Charles Atlas superpowers and the other doesn't?

Given that ToB is essentially a giant retcon/update the classes from it and their equivalents are a good example of things that should not be used in the same game together. Though to differniate this would be an almost prestige class definition, centered around the schools from ToB.


Gishes are rarely effective with just two classes and a PrC, because you won't get to 20 with that. A good gish would probably include a dip in spellsword, some abjurant champion, maybe Jade Phoenix Mage if you start with an IL base, Eldritch Knight if you don't mind losing one caster level, etc, and all of them advance the same exact concept without needing refluffing. With refluffing, you can easily have even more, and, in game, it's almost impossible to tell the difference between a member of any of the PrCs I just listed.

Obviously the basic multi-class is generally a bad option for anything with casting. Its why PrC exist in the first place. At the same time PrC still have added abilities and represent if not different professions but different schools within that.

And simply adding more devalues the entire concept, doesn't bother you but bothers me. See previous points about wanting to play a class system when playing a game with a class system. I have no problem with combinations within fairly permissive limits, as if you need a fourth to realize your concept it likely more about performance or specific mechanical tricks then about the concept of the character.

You aren't really adding anything by going on about specific possibilities, if anything it just reinforces my thoughts. There's a bunch of ways to Gish, but why does on need more then one PrC of flavor for it?

DragoonWraith
2010-06-14, 02:20 AM
Given that ToB is essentially a giant retcon/update the classes from it and their equivalents are a good example of things that should not be used in the same game together.
This is patently false. The ToB classes were designed to multiclass well with their core counterparts, and this was very obviously quite intentional. Why else would non-IL classes count for 1/2 IL, and why else would Martial Study and Martial Stance be Fighter Bonus Feats?

erikun
2010-06-14, 02:41 AM
This is patently false. The ToB classes were designed to multiclass well with their core counterparts, and this was very obviously quite intentional. Why else would non-IL classes count for 1/2 IL, and why else would Martial Study and Martial Stance be Fighter Bonus Feats?
I'm not too sure about that. How does Paladin multiclass well with Crusader? How does Monk multiclass well with Swordsage?

Also, there are plenty of reasons for non-IL classes to give IL. Not every core martial class has a ToB equilivant; where is the Barbarian, the Ranger, or the Rogue? It allows for easier gishes in the Jade Phoenix and Ruby Vindicator. And the Martial Study/Stance are quite useful for an existing character who wishes to use maneuvers without creating an entirely new character.

The Fighter still has a use with ToB, although only as a source of quick feats.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 02:41 AM
The argument I am disagreeing with is a specific subtype of that false dillema; dip based optimization is not detrimental to roleplay.

But you're arguing outside the breadth of that false dilemma: if you had said that dip based optimization need not be detrimental to role play, you would be correct. The fact that there is no inherent correlation is a safe position. But you are arguing that there is no conflict under specified (albeit tacitly specified circumstances) constraints: the person you were responding too clearly had specific game-world concepts attached to each of those character classes. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the elements may run counter in those circumstances.


A man very devoted to god X (Paladin, Cleric), who fights with surprising agility (monk) and pragmatism (Rogue, Fighter [feats]), and can draw upon his faith to grant him great power when he needs it most (Barbarian, Cleric).

Or we could make a prestige class which represents a pragmatic, resilient, agile warrior or God X. Then let you decide when to enter it. I find this a far more elegant and parsimonious solution.


That didn't even take but once sentence to justify mechanically.

You shouldn't have to justify it mechanically. That's the point of using a class based system.


You don't need to fluff it so he studied at a church, the assassin's institute, the academy of getting power attack as a bonus feat, a dojo, and a tribal village while being initiated as a paladin later... you just need to give reasons why he has all the powers he gives that are at tied to the class archetype.

In what sense, then, is the archetype carried by the class and not the abilities. If designing a game for a table full of these characters, what is the benefit of a class-based system over a class-less system?

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 02:43 AM
Except that's not what you said. I was addressing the fact you said the name and fluff of the class means something; and it doesn't. Sorcerer, wizard, mystic, and so forth might be terms in the game world but there's likely not much difference between a Wizard-wizard, or a Shadowcaster-wizard, or an Adept-wizard from a role-playing standpoint.

Of course they have meaning. The old hedge wizard can call himself that but a Wizard that knows the difference would quite possibly be highly offended by an uneducated naturalist like that claiming to have truely studied the mysteries of the universe. The rest are organizations or positions and therefore not relevant to classes having meaning.

Since all of them worked within my own standard so I shrugged and said so what?



I also mentioned another character, who wanted a ninja-ish character and had somewhere around 8 character classes and a lot of dipping to get the exact flavor he wanted. No mention of him in your post.

Did I quote an 8 class character? I'm hardly getting everything in this thread.

I can say though that 8 classes for a ninja, yeah a fancy car of mechanical devices right there. Less is more.

How about this one. I had a friend who played a wizard/cleric/rogue/ranger/assassin who was around 14th level in a Red Hand of Doom game. He made use of all those classes to flesh out his character as he desired. Interestingly, he took them to represent certain aspects of learning during his adventure - often deciding what to progress in at the time of leveling rather than determining a build beforehand.


Also, WotC has released TWO samurai classes. Oriental Adventures which is very similar to Fighter; and Complete Warriors which is very similar to fecal matter roasted over an open flame.

Exactly neither is satisfactory in making the class meaningful and the entire concept is basically renaming the Fighter just to fit an Eastern Motif. Its something I consider silly. The closest really is the Kensai PrC, if that was named Samurai that would be the sensible alternative.

I don't have OA though so maybe I'm doing their samurai a disservice.

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 02:51 AM
You seemed to have missed that the numbers don' matter because I merely used them to illustrate a trend or escalation, though I'd probably agree that playing out a PrC is going to be better played all around then straight multi-classing because they exist to make that option valid. Two classes is that uncomfortable lurch, unless the second is itself a PrC or dip.

Now then moving on the problem with your use of Stormwind, indeed its entire existence as a fallacy in the first place, is that because you are using to suggest the opposite. That optimizing and other mechanical shenanigans cannot make one bad a role-playing. Or otherwise suggesting that those out there who play to "win" the game via optimizing and building unbeatable characters do not exist. We wouldn't have the term munchkin if there weren't that sort of thing.

That something is not true all the time does not mean it is never anything to be concerned about.

The Stormwind fallacy is when somebody argues that optimization hinders roleplaying (a false dilemma fallacy). That is what you are doing, in a slightly different extent; even if it's not exactly the same, it's still a false dilemma fallacy, because multiple classes doesn't necessarily mean better or worse roleplay.





+1 BAB every level: Skill with making things connect
D12 hit die: Really really tough, possibly big for your race too
Good X saves: Indominable Will, etc
Ability to cast spells: Depending on the flavor natural magical ability, intensive study, etc
Maneuver progression: Charles Atlas Superpowers :smalltongue:
Bonus feat from class list: Feats arising from training
Turn undead: A divine outpouring of faith
Sneak attack: What it says on the tin

I suspect you are using fluff more restrictively then me.

I'm using fluff far less restrictively than you are... I don't like to limit players, nor like to be limited, based on very strict fluff. The stuff you've listed still isn't fluff for half of it; being better at hitting things, sneak attacking, etc. are all still mechanical.


I mean it to represent every in-character bit of description, what it means to the characters that don't know what d20s are unless its a tavern dice game to gamble on.

I... have no clue what this statement means. You've already argued classes are an in game concept, but now you seem to be presenting the argument they aren't.


If I may be cynical for a moment I suspect the term "fluff" would arose from exactly the sort of approach I don't care for as shorthand for "stuff that doesn't matter" as to me refluffing should be fairly rare.

Fluff is shorthand for "Stuff that isn't mechanics." I don't appreciate you straw manning me.

Refluffing is not a big deal however. Do you need good fluff for a story? Sure. Does the fluff have to be exactly the same it always is? No. As I said: classes are broad archetypes. There's fluff associated, but very, very, very, very little specifics, and you can easily mix the archetypes together if they fit your character.


A sorceror and favored soul would speak different gibberish words as befitting their different sources of magic. In the cast of the divine it may well vary a touch depending on the deity in question. Arcane and divine magic are at least well established if not as separate ideas as could be wished for.

Not an identifiable difference to anybody without many ranks in spellcraft, and divine magic is not always from the gods in D&D anyway, plus, again, how would an average joe, or even a decent fighter without spellcraft, know?


For that matter a martial cleric and a paladin would not have the same connection to their deity, the latter leaning less on specific prayers and for that matter not having nearly as many. Degree of how much one channels their deity's power I'll say.

And this goes into the point I'm arguing against: You are being far too restrictive on what a class is and isn't. They are archetypes, not the specifics of the player. A cleric can easily be just as faithful as a paladin, or a paladin as faithful as a cleric. Mechanically, however, you can easily make a cleric that looks and acts, in all ways, like a paladin.


These don't seem particularly close pairs to me. Personally the only real snag for me is Paladins casting spells, but I've previously noted I'm annoyed at how many ways to use magic there are so I'll move on.

That's because you rely on A: Everybody having high enough ranks in spellcraft to constantly identify spellcasting (the only real way to differentiate the first set) and B: being incredibly strict on fluff, to the point it seems almost like you're trying to go to absurd lengths just to "win" the argument instead of coming to a reasonable conclusion. Are you really saying that in your game, every cleric has to be incredibly devout and none of the paladins are equally devout, or that the clerics can't be as lawful or live by a code?


One has good Charles Atlas superpowers and the other doesn't?

Again: Not recognizable by anybody except high level characters/people with martial lore. A monk and an unarmed swordsage, beating up, say, a bear, would look very similar.


Given that ToB is essentially a giant retcon/update the classes from it and their equivalents are a good example of things that should not be used in the same game together. Though to differniate this would be an almost prestige class definition, centered around the schools from ToB.

Martial study feats are fighter bonus feats, warblades are specifically fighter level -4 (I think, can't recall the exact number) for feats, etc. They clearly had compatibility in mind, at least with the current fighter, so they aren't just a remake; they've only been considered that due to mechanical reasons.


Obviously the basic multi-class is generally a bad option for anything with casting. Its why PrC exist in the first place. At the same time PrC still have added abilities and represent if not different professions but different schools within that.

Or they represent a character who is good at all things? You are thinking far too narrowly, again. It's just an archetype. An abjurant champion and a spellsword aren't totally different things, taught by different people, they're just people who can cast and fight well at the same time. You can apply either of them to any gish concept without requiring an explanation of "where I picked up spellswordery based on the fluff in the book about where they are in the world" or "How my personality fits the default abjurant champion."


And simply adding more devalues the entire concept, doesn't bother you but bothers me. See previous points about wanting to play a class system when playing a game with a class system. I have no problem with combinations within fairly permissive limits, as if you need a fourth to realize your concept it likely more about performance or specific mechanical tricks then about the concept of the character.

False dilemma, again. Your choices on what class you pick are completely irrelevant to whether your character's backstory and roleplaying potential are good. As for the sentence about playing a class system when playing a game with a class system... that doesn't even make sense.


You aren't really adding anything by going on about specific possibilities, if anything it just reinforces my thoughts. There's a bunch of ways to Gish, but why does on need more then one PrC of flavor for it?

Because there aren't enough levels in one PrC, mechanically, support the concept? Because "I'm good at fighting and casting while in armor" fits abjurant champion, spellsword, and other gish PCs?

Here's a better question for you: Why can't they work together? Why can't a character who wants to be a gish take levels in multiple gish PrCs when the archetypes work together? Why can't casters take multiple PrCs, especially five level ones? Why can't warrior types multiclass when the classes are only very vague archetypes?

It just doesn't make sense to me, at all, to say "The fluff doesn't fit" when the fluff is very vague archetypes, especially when you limit character creation (no gish would advance past level 10~15 in your system because they can't mechanically sustain being a gish without more PrCs, so they wouldn't mechanically match their concept) in your game for the purpose of fluff; it seems like you are so strict on "this encourages bad roleplaying" your games would actively limit the roleplaying options a character has; all paladins are radar-dins, all barbarians are raging tribals, all paladins are moral but not quite as religious as cleric types, all clerics are religious but not quite as honorable as paladins, gishes don't exist, etc.


But you're arguing outside the breadth of that false dilemma: if you had said that dip based optimization need not be detrimental to role play, you would be correct. The fact that there is no inherent correlation is a safe position. But you are arguing that there is no conflict under specified (albeit tacitly specified circumstances) constraints: the person you were responding too clearly had specific game-world concepts attached to each of those character classes. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the elements may run counter in those circumstances.

So your argument is that I'm wrong because my opponent disagrees? It's still a false dilemma; fluff doesn't mess with mechanics, but being strict on refluffing does.


Or we could make a prestige class which represents a pragmatic, resilient, agile warrior or God X. Then let you decide when to enter it. I find this a far more elegant and parsimonious solution.

Elegant, perhaps. It doesn't, however, show that the current multiclass is a bad idea.


You shouldn't have to justify it mechanically. That's the point of using a class based system.

That only applies in a very specific subset of players.

If you design the mechanics first, and then the character fluff (as I do): You're flat out wrong about not having to justify the character mechanically; since my fluff is written second, I do have to, to some extent, write the fluff based on the abilities. It's just really easy to write a description of why you can do X and still fit a set theme; if I want to be a blaster wizard, I take options that enhance blasting and fluff them all together afterwards.

If you design the character first, you *still* have to justify the character mechanically, because if your fluff says "He's a holy warrior of X" he should probably have levels in something/reflavor something to seem like holy powers. Only in cases where your fluff is pretty much explicitly "He is a paladin of X/a wizard of academy Y" would you *not* have to make your characters mechanics match his fluff or his fluff match his mechanics.

If you design the character in a flip floppy manner (as I do sometimes as well), and by that I mean "I want to play an *general archetype*" and then create the class, and then write your backstory to include reasons for feats, PrCs, dips, etc: You still justify the mechanics of what you have with the backstory, and use your mechanics to fit the backstory.

I don't see where your problem is with "justifying" mechanics. I simply mean that if you have X ability, then the fact you have it can easily be explained by your backstory, even if the abilities come from multiple different classes.

EDIT: Basically, my point here is this: Many people, myself included, do not feel constrained by the fluff of the classes, so much as what the abilities themselves imply. Sorcerers may have plenty of fluff about being dragon blooded, and generally frail, but that's unimportant.

The stuff that matters, and what needs to be "justified," which only means "the characters backstory includes a reason for this ability", is the abilities you have. I cast arcane spells spontaneously, I sneak attack with them, and I am fond of metamagic. I don't have to fit the narrow fluff of "Sneaky, skillmonkey trap finding rogue who grew up on the streets," "Sorcerer who got his powers from draconic heritage" and... whatever incantatrix's fluff was (not that I'd use incantatrix in a real game).

I'm Dave, the fastest spellslinger in town, capable of hitting ten silver dollars flung in the air at the same time, travelling around making money by showing off at marksmanship competitions.


In what sense, then, is the archetype carried by the class and not the abilities. If designing a game for a table full of these characters, what is the benefit of a class-based system over a class-less system?

In what sense is this relevant? It's D&D 3.5, not a classless system, and bringing in a strawman to attack doesn't matter. I'll still bite, though: Class based systems are easier to balance and, with D&Ds multiclassing and PrC options, still provide a ton of options, assuming you give PCs access to them, anyway. You sacrifice endless creativity for a system that can theoretically be balanced, and in no way does either have any advantage in fluff.

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 03:02 AM
Of course they have meaning. The old hedge wizard can call himself that but a Wizard that knows the difference would quite possibly be highly offended by an uneducated naturalist like that claiming to have truely studied the mysteries of the universe. The rest are organizations or positions and therefore not relevant to classes having meaning.

They're only as relevant as you make them. Why would every assassin call themselves an assassin? Would not the fighter who killed the king while posing as a guard not be an assassin? Semantics and nonsense.

Both people are using magic in different ways. To use your own examples, "Doctors" in some parts of heal different ways than Doctors in other parts of the world; always have, and always will. Some are more or less effective than others at different things; so does them not all coming from the same training or backgrounds mean they have to be called something different?

What you describe, sounds to me like your game world has children walking around saying "I want to be a 12th level Paladin when I grow up"; like Order of the Stick. While it works great for Order of the Stick, it's meant to be humorous and not taken seriously. On that same note, Order of the Stick makes a lot of good points - such as when the "Samurai" are actually Paladins because the "Paladin" class is a meta-game concept.

OotS makes the point better than I think I ever could, in a single comic panel. A picture and its worth I suppose.


Because it's aparsimonious. The class is no longer being used to represent the archetype: instead, the abilities of the classes are.

Again, you're delving into an area that would be better handled by a classless system. Classless systems have many significant advantages, particularly in dealing with complex and precise mechanical character concepts. When that's the order of the day, I use them if possible.

If I want to replicate specific abilities of a Ninja for combat purposes, I'll play GURPS: it will allow me to invest into the specific aspects of a Ninja I want to emulate.

If I wanted to play a class with abilities that are generally abstracted from the the whole of "Ninja skills," I would play D&D.

3.x D&D is a hybrid. It grants the flexibility and options that a rigid class system of pre-3.x or post 3.x cannot provide. You can build a wide range of character concepts, similar to a free-form generation such as Shadowrun, Deadlands, or any other class-less system; while having the convenience and simplicity of character classes.

IE - It's designed in such a way you can have your cake and eat it to. This is a good thing. If you're fine with being "Fighter 20", then you can do so - and Fighter's not even an arch-type. "Warrior" fills that. Fighter is just a mechanical template that comes with sample or suggested descriptive fluff. This is what all classes are on different levels.

This purist idea that you either have to adhere to rigid limitations of a pure-class system, or have no classes at all, confuses me to no end; because I cannot find a logical reason for it for all my thinking...and no one has successfully been able to explain it to me.

Ashiel
2010-06-14, 03:04 AM
Additionally, if I were a wizard why would I have to take offense to it? Maybe I don't call myself a wizard. I'm Dylander the Spell-weaver; or Shmendric the Magician. I'm Galstaff, Sorcerer of Light. I'm Tandric, a guy who's learned enough about arcane magic that you shouldn't mess with me. I'm Blackmore the Dreaded Necromancer (not to be confused with dread necromancer since that might upset someone for my stepping on there fluffs).

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 03:05 AM
They're only as relevant as you make them. Why would every assassin call themselves an assassin? Would not the fighter who killed the king while posing as a guard not be an assassin? Semantics and nonsense.

Both people are using magic in different ways. To use your own examples, "Doctors" in some parts of heal different ways than Doctors in other parts of the world; always have, and always will. Some are more or less effective than others at different things; so does them not all coming from the same training or backgrounds mean they have to be called something different?

What you describe, sounds to me like your game world has children walking around saying "I want to be a 12th level Paladin when I grow up"; like Order of the Stick. While it works great for Order of the Stick, it's meant to be humorous and not taken seriously. On that same note, Order of the Stick makes a lot of good points - such as when the "Samurai" are actually Paladins because the "Paladin" class is a meta-game concept.

OotS makes the point better than I think I ever could, in a single comic panel. A picture and its worth I suppose.



3.x D&D is a hybrid. It grants the flexibility and options that a rigid class system of pre-3.x or post 3.x cannot provide. You can build a wide range of character concepts, similar to a free-form generation such as Shadowrun, Deadlands, or any other class-less system; while having the convenience and simplicity of character classes.

IE - It's designed in such a way you can have your cake and eat it to. This is a good thing. If you're fine with being "Fighter 20", then you can do so - and Fighter's not even an arch-type. "Warrior" fills that. Fighter is just a mechanical template that comes with sample or suggested descriptive fluff. This is what all classes are on different levels.

This purist idea that you either have to adhere to rigid limitations of a pure-class system, or have no classes at all, confuses me to no end; because I cannot find a logical reason for it for all my thinking...and no one has successfully been able to explain it to me.

The reason nobody can explain saying "You can either be classless or not purely single classed" is because it is the very same false dilemma I've been arguing against... it's a fallacy for good reason. They present two options when there are far more than that. All systems have their merits; pure class based is simple, classless lets you do what you want, but D&D 3.5, with it's multiclassing, lets you get the ease of gaining abilities based on class while still giving you the flexibility to do what you want, and keep balance relatively well (In a casual party, balance is far better than in point based systems, and in optimization... barring infinite loops, it's still more balanced than some systems.)

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 03:08 AM
Not an identifiable difference to anybody without many ranks in spellcraft, and divine magic is not always from the gods in D&D anyway, plus, again, how would an average joe, or even a decent fighter without spellcraft, know? How would anyone with decent spell casting not know?


B: being incredibly strict on fluff, to the point it seems almost like you're trying to go to absurd lengths just to "win" the argument instead of coming to a reasonable conclusion. Are you really saying that in your game, every cleric has to be incredibly devout and none of the paladins are equally devout, or that the clerics can't be as lawful or live by a code?

I doubt that, but clerics in my games tended to wear primarily robes long before the publication of the cloistered cleric. The difference is between a priest and a holy warrior. One might reasonably be called to the other end of the cause, but if there is no differentiation at all, I would probably only use one.


Martial study feats are fighter bonus feats, warblades are specifically fighter level -4 (I think, can't recall the exact number) for feats, etc. They clearly had compatibility in mind, at least with the current fighter, so they aren't just a remake; they've only been considered that due to mechanical reasons.


While I would say that there was an active attempt at compatibility, I would also say that the basic goal was to present a T3 application of the same archetypes as the core melee classes they are often compared to. In much the same way, Tome of Magic seems designed to provide more limited powered options for caster classes.


An abjurant champion and a spellsword aren't totally different things, taught by different people

As a default, I would assume they are.

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 03:17 AM
How would anyone with decent spell casting not know?

Because they're casting the same spells? They might have different components, sure, but what does that matter? It's never even stated the same casters do things exactly the same way for all spells. If you heard about their deeds, you wouldn't know the difference, and even the assumption all spellcasters cast the same way is not set in stone, save the mechanical reason they have to use their arms and talk. It's very possible even different arcane casters of the same metagame "class" would use different words for their spells, since there's no mechanical reason they couldn't.

Even if they could tell the difference between an arcane and divine caster... those are also metagame concepts! They don't know what a spell list is, or why clerics spells are in the same class as Druids but not in the same class as wizards, because they don't even know those classes exist! All they know is that the way that the holy knight of Pelor casts spells is different than the way Ted the Burninator or Jim the travelling mageician or Archibald the hippy with the really smelly pet alligator cast spells.


I doubt that, but clerics in my games tended to wear primarily robes long before the publication of the cloistered cleric. The difference is between a priest and a holy warrior. One might reasonably be called to the other end of the cause, but if there is no differentiation at all, I would probably only use one.

This is the problem with being too restrictive in fluff... clerics can't even use their class features due to your fluff saying they all wear robes (either that or you're digressing, in which case see the next paragraph). They've got armor proficiencies, decent BAB, and a primarily buff spell list for a reason.

The thing is, I'm not saying "All clerics and paladins are the same." I'm just saying "Not all clerics are the same, not all paladins are the same, and there could be overlap." Clerics can wear robes, paladins could wear robes, they could both go into combat as fighters, they could both be support, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.


While I would say that there was an active attempt at compatibility, I would also say that the basic goal was to present a T3 application of the same archetypes as the core melee classes they are often compared to. In much the same way, Tome of Magic seems designed to provide more limited powered options for caster classes.

Yes, they're intended to be stronger/more limited... but in no way to replace the other classes.


As a default, I would assume they are.

This assumes classes are in game concepts, and not metagame concepts. Classes being metagame concepts is something suggested in the DMG, and for good reason.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 03:30 AM
So your argument is that I'm wrong because my opponent disagrees? It's still a false dilemma; fluff doesn't mess with mechanics, but being strict on refluffing does.
No, my argument is that you're saying that it's not demonstrable for the general case when your opponent is presenting a more narrow case for which it might be. A false dilemma could certainly exist, but that's not what the opponent was presenting. He was presenting (albeit in a somewhat convoluted manner) a situation, relevant to him, in which the dilemma can in fact exist.


Elegant, perhaps. It doesn't, however, show that the current multiclass is a bad idea.
Avoidable inelegance is always a bad idea.


That only applies in a very specific subset of players. {three paragraphs, cf original post}

You make a valid point here, though I would only generally say that you are justifying the mechanics if you design them first (in the reverse, I would say you are justifying the backstory).

Regardless, my comment was uninclusive and somewhat crude. I apologize.


EDIT: Basically, my point here is this: Many people, myself included, do not feel constrained by the fluff of the classes, so much as what the abilities themselves imply. Sorcerers may have plenty of fluff about being dragon blooded, and generally frail, but that's unimportant.

And my point is that there are plenty of people for whom it is important.


In what sense is this relevant? It's D&D 3.5, not a classless system, and bringing in a strawman to attack doesn't matter. I'll still bite, though: Class based systems are easier to balance and, with D&Ds multiclassing and PrC options, still provide a ton of options, assuming you give PCs access to them, anyway. You sacrifice endless creativity for a system that can theoretically be balanced, and in no way does either have any advantage in fluff.

Its relevant because D&D doesn't exist in a vacuum. And I would say it gives a severe advantage to fluff: class based systems are almost universally presented in terms of Archetypes. Archetypes are powerful stuff: they carry the huge weight of prior cultural exposure. And those ideas are tied to names. If you ask people what a "Knight" is, you'll probably hear a lot about King Arthur and the like. That's because the name "Knight" carries those connotations; the name of the class has importance. For me, at least, one of the big benefits of a class system is that you can carry all of that meaning without worrying about the precise mechanics.


This assumes classes are in game concepts, and not metagame concepts. Classes being metagame concepts is something suggested in the DMG, and for good reason.

Unless I'm forgetting a large section of the DMG, what your referencing is the second or third subsection of the "Classes" section of chapter 6. This is, notably, the section before the section introducing PrCs. And it doesn't note that classes should be purely metagame: it notes that the class archetypes are broad enough that they can encompass many related but different concepts and that you should be flexible enough to allow this. I don't disagree. But the example they give is that if the particular game world is extremely devout, you everyone might get a level of cleric. I'm fine with that. I would be less fine with "Everyone is particularly transient, so they should have cleric 1 with travel devotion."

My larger point is that I find altering the classes (their presented solution from the same section) far more conducive to reinforcing the Archetype you're working with than trying to cobble something together from other classes like you're being forced to work with off-brand legos. (Incidentally, I hated legos and loathed the off-brands even more)


The reason nobody can explain saying "You can either be classless or not purely single classed" is because it is the very same false dilemma I've been arguing against... it's a fallacy for good reason. They present two options when there are far more than that. All systems have their merits; pure class based is simple, classless lets you do what you want, but D&D 3.5, with it's multiclassing, lets you get the ease of gaining abilities based on class while still giving you the flexibility to do what you want, and keep balance relatively well (In a casual party, balance is far better than in point based systems, and in optimization... barring infinite loops, it's still more balanced than some systems.)

Yes, there are plenty of in between. I'm not trying to say that they're not valid nor that 3.5 isn't good at them. But 3.5 is also very, very good at the pure class based system, and some of us want to play that. In fact, it would seem to be what the central portion of the game was designed around before the more complicated heavy-multiclass game-play emerged.

And some of us prefer that pure-class game-play (or something close). Some of us got pretty much exactly what we wanted when the core books were published.

And I have found, personally, that the emergent multiclassing game in 3.5 often (but not always) runs counter to the goals that I (and some people I play regularly with) seek from a such a pure class game.


Yes, they're intended to be stronger/more limited... but in no way to replace the other classes.
I would tend to disagree, at least with the "in no way." But I think we're mostly disagreeing here on the meaning of "replace:" if I said that the ToB classes were intended to be "thematically identical (or close) alternatives for a higher powered game" would you disagree?

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-14, 04:41 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. As a DM, I like to ask player to present rough build ideas to L12 or so and how they perceive the PC going. If they have more classes than levels / 3 I'll immediately talk about a custom prestige class that will meet their needs. Similarly, as a player, if I find myself needing 4+ Class dips to meet a concept (not a build per se, but a mechanical and character concept), then I'll ask to customize.

A perfect example of a concept needing a custom re-do is the Ranger (w/ Variant) / Scout / Cleric (Celerity, Luck) / Barbarian (w/ Variant) / Fighter / Dervish who's meant to be the dual-wielding, skirmishing (improved) and travel devoted ultra-mobile (60' Min) and full-attack charging tracker/trapfinder guy :).

In the end, what we wound up making was a customized Ranger-type with a 3/4 BAB Rate, Skirmish, Trapfinding and Mobile Full Attack Actions (limited use per day) - less the animal companion and spells. Oh, and not with the Combat Style for Bows option. Basically it's a dedicated 2Wp Skirmisher.

In the end, it does everything the other class did, and does it much cleaner and with FAR less confusion.

So, assuming you use the Fractional BAB & Fractional Saves options... how is what you did any different than just getting the multiple classes?

Why reinvent the wheel, just because you want the wheel to be "prettier"?

Cogidubnus
2010-06-14, 04:57 AM
I'm just going to say that for me, personally, multiclassing can be a pain. I don't have the patience or the depth of knowledge to find that perfect combination of classes, and I like the symmetry, if that's the right word, of full levels in one class because it looks nice. So playing in groups that dip heavily means I either have to be a caster or feel slightly left behind on the power levels. Or spend days on my concepts.

Tavar
2010-06-14, 10:28 AM
I'm just going to say that for me, personally, multiclassing can be a pain. I don't have the patience or the depth of knowledge to find that perfect combination of classes, and I like the symmetry, if that's the right word, of full levels in one class because it looks nice. So playing in groups that dip heavily means I either have to be a caster or feel slightly left behind on the power levels. Or spend days on my concepts.
Or, play something that doesn't need to multiclass. Tome of Battle, Factotum, wildshape ranger, Incarnum, dragonfire adept, binder...there are plenty of non-casters that don't need to multiclass in order to reach the same general power-level as high-optimization characters. Which, by the way, is different than multiclass characters, as often such practices don't increase power level by a dramatic amount. More often, they simply make the character fit the specific concept better.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-14, 10:38 AM
I'm not too sure about that. How does Paladin multiclass well with Crusader?
Decently. Divine Grace is better than Indomitable Soul, and Paladins are front-loaded anyway. The weakness of Smite Evil and the lack of ToB support for Mounted Combat does pose a few problems, though.


How does Monk multiclass well with Swordsage?
Again, rather well, since Monk is front-loaded. For an unarmed Swordsage, levels were presumably intended to stack for unarmed damage, so that's useful, and you get a bunch of not-bad bonus feats and Evasion if you dip Monk for two levels.


where is the Barbarian
Well, primarily I'd point to a Warblade with a focus in Iron Heart; they're similar ideas (after all, Iron Heart Surge is clearly intended to be a rather signature Conan moment).


the Ranger
One of Tome of Battle's biggest shortcomings, I suppose, is the lack of ranged combat. Still, a Swordsage with lots of focus in Tiger Claw would do nicely as a replacement for a TWF Ranger.


or the Rogue?
Swordsage is an excellent dip for Rogues, you know. A well timed level of Swordsage can get you Assassin's Stance for +2d6 Sneak Attack damage, Cloak of Deception for a one-round Greater Invisibility effect 1/encounter, Wolf Fang Strike for attacking with both weapons on a standard action, etc etc.


It allows for easier gishes in the Jade Phoenix and Ruby Vindicator.
Agreed, but that's not all it does.


And the Martial Study/Stance are quite useful for an existing character who wishes to use maneuvers without creating an entirely new character.
This is true, but I've used plenty of characters that have use for them despite owning Tome of Battle from character creation. The book 'works' exceptionally well, both as a self-contained unit and in terms of how it fits into the rest of 3.5.


The Fighter still has a use with ToB, although only as a source of quick feats.
That's the only use the Fighter ever had. It was never a good idea to take more than 6 levels, and then only for Dungeoncrasher. Without Dungeoncrasher, 4 levels was only if you were really desperate.

Oslecamo
2010-06-14, 11:12 AM
Because they're casting the same spells? They might have different components, sure, but what does that matter? It's never even stated the same casters do things exactly the same way for all spells. If you heard about their deeds, you wouldn't know the difference, and even the assumption all spellcasters cast the same way is not set in stone, save the mechanical reason they have to use their arms and talk. It's very possible even different arcane casters of the same metagame "class" would use different words for their spells, since there's no mechanical reason they couldn't.

Spellcraft. Anyone with that skill can identify magic effects. That would make no sense whatsoever if everybody had their own custom magic. Same spells also have same specific somatic components like bat's guando and whatnot. Spell compendium provides ilustrations for the hand movements needed for some spells.

Also wizards can automatically identify scroll spells they know themselves even if they were written by other wizard if I'm not mistaken.



Even if they could tell the difference between an arcane and divine caster... those are also metagame concepts! They don't know what a spell list is,

Wizards and archivists certainly know since they need to write it down in a book.:smallwink:



or why clerics spells are in the same class as Druids but not in the same class as wizards, because they don't even know those classes exist!

The wizard certainly notices that while he gets spells by studying a book the cleric and druid are geting their stuff from praying to higher powers. And that their arcane magic doesn't work very well with armor.



All they know is that the way that the holy knight of Pelor casts spells is different than the way Ted the Burninator or Jim the travelling mageician or Archibald the hippy with the really smelly pet alligator cast spells.

Not really, with some observation they can notice if Ted needs an holy symbol to do his work(cleric), or if Jim gets away with simple mistletoe(druid).



The thing is, I'm not saying "All clerics and paladins are the same." I'm just saying "Not all clerics are the same, not all paladins are the same, and there could be overlap." Clerics can wear robes, paladins could wear robes, they could both go into combat as fighters, they could both be support, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But the cleric still needs a holy symbol and the wizard still needs a book and the druid laughs at them both and casts with a mistletoe, but get him to wear metal armor and he suddenly can't use magic!





This assumes classes are in game concepts, and not metagame concepts. Classes being metagame concepts is something suggested in the DMG, and for good reason.

The DMG also says wizards are expected to throw fireballs and clerics to be healbots. :smalltongue:

Theodoxus
2010-06-14, 11:29 AM
So, assuming you use the Fractional BAB & Fractional Saves options... how is what you did any different than just getting the multiple classes?

Why reinvent the wheel, just because you want the wheel to be "prettier"?

I do this - but to L20 - make a complete build and then refocus it to a single class. It does require dedication to the singular build - no multiclassing out of it mid game - so it's not an option everyone takes, but if you're looking for some twisted ideas on a build, it's pretty grand.

I do actually modify the saves and bab... basically, if your build ends up with +16 or better bab at 20, you have full - if it's +11 to 15, you have 3/4, otherwise you're at 1/2. Similar with saves. +10 or better gets +12, +9 or worse gets +6. Most builds end up with +12 across the board unless they're particularly focused on one area - but I've yet to have anyone build a class with only 1 good save.

I don't move abilities around if I can help it - if they have a dead level, so be it. If they have a particularly strong level, again - that's fine. The only concession to that is with spellcasting. If they're basing the class on a PrC with 70% or less caster level progression, they'll get those dead levels built in. But if it's 80% or better, I'll remove the dead levels. Yeah, it makes casters a little more powerful, but it simplifies the spell progression headache.

AtwasAwamps
2010-06-14, 11:53 AM
A monk and an unarmed swordsage, beating up, say, a bear, would look very similar.

::flails and distracts from topic::

I'm sigging this, just because it puts the image of the world's saddest bear in my head.

Poor Punchy the Bear.


Decently. Divine Grace is better than Indomitable Soul, and Paladins are front-loaded anyway. The weakness of Smite Evil and the lack of ToB support for Mounted Combat does pose a few problems, though.


This can be mitigated a little if you drop the paladin mount for the Charging Smite variant from PHBII, which stacks quite neatly with a number of the charging maneuvers from White Raven for a Crusader. Provides a fairly decent, if limited, damage boost to add on to your attacks and, with paladin levels, a wand/1 or 2 casts of Rhino's Rush makes things very hurty.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 01:00 PM
Way to frakking much stuff to touch...


The Stormwind fallacy is when somebody argues that optimization hinders roleplaying (a false dilemma fallacy). That is what you are doing, in a slightly different extent; even if it's not exactly the same, it's still a false dilemma fallacy, because multiple classes doesn't necessarily mean better or worse roleplay

You continue to enforce the false dilemma.

You yourself are arguing fallaciously, by denying outright the idea of a "possibility" and strawmanning my argument into a statement on absolutes. Namely that they have to effect one another which I patently deny. Supporting that distortion though makes your argument a de facto:

Optimization cannot and never affects roleplay.

Which I find patently false as evidenced by the existence of the term munchkin. Now if you are not in fact supporting that statement and merely that that optimization does not automatically correlate to good/bad roleplay then I agree and have said so repeatedly.

However that in turn is not anywhere close to saying they're cannot be an effect. Which I submit there can be and one of (and not the only) the ways it manifests is with dip happy builds. Thus is a acceptable part of a rationale for keeping a lid on specific builds.

If you want to suppose that while the detrimental effect can happen, but doesn't occur often enough to be concerned about that's a fair argument in itself. There we'd have nothing to rely on but our own experience and the anecdotes thereof, so we'd be left with simple disagreement on the facts that isn't going to be resolved here.


I... have no clue what this statement means. You've already argued classes are an in game concept, but now you seem to be presenting the argument they aren't.

That every mechanic is a manifestation of an in-game effect and that in-game effect is a part of the overall fluff of the character alongside class choices, race, stats, feat choices, age, and personal background.


Not an identifiable difference to anybody without many ranks in spellcraft, and divine magic is not always from the gods in D&D anyway, plus, again, how would an average joe, or even a decent fighter without spellcraft, know?

Not terribly much when the max for identifying a spell being cast is DC 24. You are going to reliably identify a spell reliable before you can cast it yourself. Whether that information includes what divine/arcane flavor it is isn't a specific matter addressed but then neither is say metamagic. I'd consider it reasonable to ask in the check, but hey whatever.

If there is a difference between which flavor is casting it that says one thing while if there isn't that says another.

As you note there's plenty of ways to establish a set-up. As I don't terribly like associating religion so heavily with a class I'd always consider it cool for a DM to say that clerics are just another school of magic. White mages to go JRPG on us. They're very divergent spell list though suggests a considerable margin of difference even then.

To me these many possibilities have a corollary to them, while there is a vast number of ways to set up a campaign practicing "less is more" and only using a few of the possibilities is a better course of action. Maybe divine spellcasting isn't direct from the gods, maybe its channeling some abstract principle, maybe its just another flavor of magic same as arcane. You pick one option though for any particular campaign as part of building a specific setting with a distinct flavor.


And this goes into the point I'm arguing against: You are being far too restrictive on what a class is and isn't. They are archetypes, not the specifics of the player. A cleric can easily be just as faithful as a paladin, or a paladin as faithful as a cleric. Mechanically, however, you can easily make a cleric that looks and acts, in all ways, like a paladin.

Hypothetically speaking if I was the game designer D&D would probably have less classes then even core brings to the table. I believe less is more in this regard for much the reasons you note. And other changes to accommodate flexibility, like more feat and PrCs being enter earlier. That isn't really an answer though.

I'm not writing this stuff though so my compromise is that the differences remain more important then the similarities. If a paladin and a martial cleric of the same levels decided to spar without spellcasting (or maybe in an AMF) there would be a substanial difference reflecting their different backgrounds and experience. One spent more time in the rectory, the other in the practice yard as shown by different BAB and possibly feat choices.




Or they represent a character who is good at all things? You are thinking far too narrowly, again. It's just an archetype. An abjurant champion and a spellsword aren't totally different things, taught by different people, they're just people who can cast and fight well at the same time. You can apply either of them to any gish concept without requiring an explanation of "where I picked up spellswordery based on the fluff in the book about where they are in the world" or "How my personality fits the default abjurant champion."

Nobody should be good at all things. (Relatively speaking anyways)

As for totally different, an engineer and a theoretical physicist would learn some of the same thing but they would learn different things as well, and those differences are what matters.


Because there aren't enough levels in one PrC, mechanically, support the concept? Because "I'm good at fighting and casting while in armor" fits abjurant champion, spellsword, and other gish PCs?

For gishes in particular, the most basic and even I can think of with a 5/5/10 with Eldritch Knight PrC yields 14th level casting. That casting isn't useful then? Maybe not next to some of the craziness of Wish, but you could spawn a bigger thread then this on whether that's actually a good thing. I dare say more people are probably going to be playing something like 9/1/10 with a single level dip to meet the prereqs and gives the full choice of spells, if not at many as a purist might get. The latter is still fine in my book, given the general imbalance between casting and non-casting.

And there are better PrCs then Eldritch Knight to be had. So I don't see any need to start dipping further.


Or, play something that doesn't need to multiclass. Tome of Battle, Factotum, wildshape ranger, Incarnum, dragonfire adept, binder...there are plenty of non-casters that don't need to multiclass in order to reach the same general power-level as high-optimization characters. Which, by the way, is different than multiclass characters, as often such practices don't increase power level by a dramatic amount. More often, they simply make the character fit the specific concept better.

Here its worth pointing out that not everybody necessarily has all those options available. Maybe I as the player know them, but does the DM also know them and how they work and is comfortable with them.

There is the generally unconscious assumption in the online discussion that everyone has access to every bit of material all the time. Even if so having to consider everything for a game is a still a hassle on the part of the DM.

I'd note its fairly common practice on this forum for PbP games to list what books are considered in for the game and what type of game the organizer is looking to run.

Gametime
2010-06-14, 01:04 PM
I think, perhaps, what we can all agree on is that classes were informed by archetypes in their design, although some more than others. The Rogue is sneaky, but there isn't much beyond that. The Fighter is bashy, but there isn't much beyond that.

Class features like Illiteracy, however, clearly point to a predetermined amount of fluff in the design of the Barbarian. It probably isn't there as a balancing mechanism, and there's no strong mechanical reason why rage and literacy can't overlap. There's no good fluff reason why the "Barbarian" can't instead be a raging, but trained, Berserker (like the ones in Dragon Age - they're angry, but they're an integrated part of civilized society).

Illiteracy is there because the designers wanted to make a Barbarian - a class that represents warriors from the fringes of civilization.

The same is true for multiclassing restrictions on Paladins and Monks. Is there any mechanical reason why they should be there? Maybe it's to balance out what the designers perceived as the ULTIMATE COSMIC POWER of those two classes. More likely, it's to make them "feel" like classes belonging only to strenuously trained people from a rigorous church or monastic order.

Then there are classes, like the Samurai and Ninja, which are in the bizarre situation of already being represented by existing classes (Fighter and Rogue, respectively), but got their own, far more restricted versions based on pop-cultural ideas of what a samurai and ninja "should" be. In the same vein, samurai and knight are more properly social titles anyway, and shouldn't really inform a character's abilities unless you are consciously playing in an intentionally cinematic setting.

The question is whether there is a compelling reason to adhere, strictly, to the "default" fluff offered by WotC in their class creation. Should my Barbarian necessarily be an actual barbarian? Should my Paladin not be allowed to call herself a samurai because she doesn't have levels in that class? Is it impossible to be knighted by the Queen without becoming a Knight?

I'd argue that the fluff attached to classes is useful. It's there as a guiding tool, a suggestion, an explanation for why the class has Bundle X of abilities instead of Bundle Y, and a helpful hint for new players who don't have any idea how to roleplay their character.

I don't think the fluff is absolute or immutable, though. That's the fun of making a character in a tabletop game, after all - making it your own.

EDIT:


Supporting that distortion though makes your argument a de facto:

Optimization cannot and never affects roleplay.

Which I find patently false as evidenced by the existence of the term munchkin.



While I'm inclined to agree, insofar as it is possible for a good mechanical choice to be a poor roleplaying choice, your assertion that the existence of a word describing a phenomenon presupposes the existence of the phenomenon is questionable.

I could just as easily, for example, find it patently false that horses never grow horns, as evidenced by the existence of the term "unicorn."

Milskidasith
2010-06-14, 01:05 PM
No, my argument is that you're saying that it's not demonstrable for the general case when your opponent is presenting a more narrow case for which it might be. A false dilemma could certainly exist, but that's not what the opponent was presenting. He was presenting (albeit in a somewhat convoluted manner) a situation, relevant to him, in which the dilemma can in fact exist.

The dilemma doesn't exist even in his game, because, as I've said, you can have characters that seem like one class even when they are others. It only exists if you force it to exist; that's the very meaning of a false dilemma.


Avoidable inelegance is always a bad idea.

Not necessarily Is elegance better? Not if it involves building a brand new PrC to do exactly what my character can already do now, especially if you are the type who builds the mechanics first and the backstory second. Basically, in this situation you've already got your "inelegant" class (D&D multiclassing is actually very elegant, for class based systems) made; building a PrC specifically for that character would take up more time to accomplish the same thing.


And my point is that there are plenty of people for whom it is important.

Yes, and my stance is: Refluffing exists, and that can't hurt roleplay, ever.


Its relevant because D&D doesn't exist in a vacuum. And I would say it gives a severe advantage to fluff: class based systems are almost universally presented in terms of Archetypes. Archetypes are powerful stuff: they carry the huge weight of prior cultural exposure. And those ideas are tied to names. If you ask people what a "Knight" is, you'll probably hear a lot about King Arthur and the like. That's because the name "Knight" carries those connotations; the name of the class has importance. For me, at least, one of the big benefits of a class system is that you can carry all of that meaning without worrying about the precise mechanics.

D&D encourages multiclassing and PrCing, and is far less of a pure single class based system than you think it is. You are limiting yourself and other players by assuming that all X classes are the same. You can entirely ditch the fluff and make something entirely new; a warrior who's actually a cleric (spells used for buffing and refluffed as inner strength), a guy possessed by a demon actually just being a sorcerer, etc.


Unless I'm forgetting a large section of the DMG, what your referencing is the second or third subsection of the "Classes" section of chapter 6. This is, notably, the section before the section introducing PrCs. And it doesn't note that classes should be purely metagame: it notes that the class archetypes are broad enough that they can encompass many related but different concepts and that you should be flexible enough to allow this. I don't disagree. But the example they give is that if the particular game world is extremely devout, you everyone might get a level of cleric. I'm fine with that. I would be less fine with "Everyone is particularly transient, so they should have cleric 1 with travel devotion."

That's exactly my point... even though I support refluffing farther than that, the DMG is saying "You can be a cleric who acts like a paladin, a barbarian who acts like a sane warrior and goes into a cold fury, a wizard who's a travelling scientist, etc." If bookish wizards don't fit, then a travelling scientist or a curious guy who swiped a wizard's spellbook might.


My larger point is that I find altering the classes (their presented solution from the same section) far more conducive to reinforcing the Archetype you're working with than trying to cobble something together from other classes like you're being forced to work with off-brand legos. (Incidentally, I hated legos and loathed the off-brands even more)

Altering classes is far harder than refluffing, takes far more time than making a multiclass character, and for people who build the character first, requires extra effort to create the same character. If a lot of people want to play X, PrC it out, but you don't need to create a specific PrC for every possible character concept when the classes are broad enough, even without refluffing, to mix and match to fit any character.




Yes, there are plenty of in between. I'm not trying to say that they're not valid nor that 3.5 isn't good at them. But 3.5 is also very, very good at the pure class based system, and some of us want to play that. In fact, it would seem to be what the central portion of the game was designed around before the more complicated heavy-multiclass game-play emerged.

The game allows multiclassing to a far greater degree than many class based systems, even with the stupid multiclass XP penalties. Especially with PrCs included, including some that either show terrible design (likely) or being intended to dip (less likely; EX: Mindbender, many gish PrCs with casting at first but not later, etc.), it's meant to be flexible, and playing it inflexibly in the name of fluff strikes me as simply limiting creativity.


And some of us prefer that pure-class game-play (or something close). Some of us got pretty much exactly what we wanted when the core books were published.

I don't disagree... your opinion is as valid as mine, yet you are arguing against anybody multiclassing. I'm not saying "you have to multiclass", I'm just saying "If you want to single class, that's fine, if you want to multiclass, that's also fine!"


And I have found, personally, that the emergent multiclassing game in 3.5 often (but not always) runs counter to the goals that I (and some people I play regularly with) seek from a such a pure class game.

It's not a pure class game, and never has been. Even before the XP penalties for multiclassing were largely ignored, it was still as much about multiclassing as single classing, and, as I said, both are valid and can be played in the same game.


I would tend to disagree, at least with the "in no way." But I think we're mostly disagreeing here on the meaning of "replace:" if I said that the ToB classes were intended to be "thematically identical (or close) alternatives for a higher powered game" would you disagree?

I'd say they fit the same archetypes to some degree, yes, but thematically, they can be anything.

EDIT: Gametime, WotC had an article somewhere (I can't remember where) that said monks were well designed because of the fact they get class features at every level so you get something for staying with it, so it's entirely possible WotC did think monks were too good to multiclass.

Gametime
2010-06-14, 01:12 PM
EDIT: Gametime, WotC had an article somewhere (I can't remember where) that said monks were well designed because of the fact they get class features at every level so you get something for staying with it, so it's entirely possible WotC did think monks were too good to multiclass.

That's possible, but if it's the article I'm thinking of it might be less that they thought the monks were well balanced and more that having benefits every level is a hallmark of good design (which is true). The monk doesn't work well, but arguably the cleric, wizard, and sorcerer are just as poorly designed because you have no inclination to stay with the classes once you can prestige class out.

One of the things I like about Pathfinder's take on 3.5 is that it added (occasionally very minor) abilities to every level. It's nice to feel like you aren't making the wrong choice by sticking with a class; that 3rd level of fighter is just irksome.

Tavar
2010-06-14, 01:47 PM
Here its worth pointing out that not everybody necessarily has all those options available. Maybe I as the player know them, but does the DM also know them and how they work and is comfortable with them.

There is the generally unconscious assumption in the online discussion that everyone has access to every bit of material all the time. Even if so having to consider everything for a game is a still a hassle on the part of the DM.

I'd note its fairly common practice on this forum for PbP games to list what books are considered in for the game and what type of game the organizer is looking to run.
Perhaps not...but that's not the point I was replying to. The person I quoted was saying that to be on par with multiclassers, he needed to multiclass heavily, and he disliked doing that. I was pointing out that this wasn't the case, and except in games that essentially ban the tier 3 classes there are plenty of ways to be on the same level as heavy dippers. In ones that ban tier 3, it's harder, but that's because tier 3 represents classes competent from the get-go, so banning them means that, yeah, to be competent is going to create more work.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-14, 02:13 PM
While I'm inclined to agree, insofar as it is possible for a good mechanical choice to be a poor roleplaying choice, your assertion that the existence of a word describing a phenomenon presupposes the existence of the phenomenon is questionable.

I could just as easily, for example, find it patently false that horses never grow horns, as evidenced by the existence of the term "unicorn."


Which is why I consider it a matter of degrees, only really objecting to a (subjectively) excessive mechanical basis for a character. Nor is this the only potential manifestation. A single class Wizard that needs X feat, Y feat, B spells, and M familiar all from different books can also be suspect for a lot of the same underlying concerns.

However yes there is potential conflict in my choice of wording, but I think we'd agree unicorns don't exist. Are you supposing that munchkins are a fictional phenomenon though, because hell I've been one at times. As this isn't debate team I'd say its not terribly important.


Perhaps not...but that's not the point I was replying to. The person I quoted was saying that to be on par with multiclassers, he needed to multiclass heavily, and he disliked doing that. I was pointing out that this wasn't the case, and except in games that essentially ban the tier 3 classes there are plenty of ways to be on the same level as heavy dippers. In ones that ban tier 3, it's harder, but that's because tier 3 represents classes competent from the get-go, so banning them means that, yeah, to be competent is going to create more work.

And so they're not, though depending on the specific options and things available it may well be the case for any particular game. Many of the options you cited are relatively obscure. I remember looking at Incarnum it and going.... cripes another new system give me a break and never looking at it again.

Gametime
2010-06-14, 02:32 PM
However yes there is potential conflict in my choice of wording, but I think we'd agree unicorns don't exist. Are you supposing that munchkins are a fictional phenomenon though, because hell I've been one at times. As this isn't debate team I'd say its not terribly important.



If you expect people to be convinced that the existence of munchkins proves that mechanical options can inhibit roleplaying, then it seems somewhat important.

As is, it's trivial to agree that munchkins exist but disagree that their defining behavior is a result of optimization inhibiting roleplaying. One could easily argue that munchkinery is the result of optimizing excessively without regard for roleplaying, and there's no compelling evidence to suggest that the excessive optimization causes the poor roleplaying.

Extremely powerful characters roleplayed poorly stand out more than weak characters roleplayed poorly, but there's no distinct and obvious cause and effect involved.

This may not be a debate club, but it is a discussion forum. Perhaps you don't really care if you convince anyone of your position, but if that's the case I wonder why you bother at all.

Oslecamo
2010-06-14, 03:17 PM
Extremely powerful characters roleplayed poorly stand out more than weak characters roleplayed poorly, but there's no distinct and obvious cause and effect involved.


No they don't. A player who cares not about roleplaying or optimization is basically a dead weight on a group and it will be felt just as badly as a player who has an uber character whitout personality.

Thing is, a player who doesn't care about roleplaying but makes an uber build can still personally enjoy the game as he seeks to use his uber build to overcome any challenges the DM throws at him, roleplaying be damned.

But if a player builds his character badly and doesn't care about roleplaying either...Why is he playing D&D again?

Answer: he isn't. He will either have improved one or both of his sides or left the group because there's really not much fun in D&D if your character is an hollow shell just slowing down the party in all aspects.

So, yes, D&D will atract players focused solely on optimization, but no, D&D won't atract persons who aren't interested in either roleplaying or mechanics.

Sliver
2010-06-14, 03:21 PM
So, yes, D&D will atract players focused solely on optimization, but no, D&D won't atract persons who aren't interested in either roleplaying or mechanics.

I... I'm pretty sure I played with people like that. :smallsigh: That online Israeli community was bad...

Tar Palantir
2010-06-14, 03:22 PM
Or we could make a prestige class which represents a pragmatic, resilient, agile warrior or God X. Then let you decide when to enter it. I find this a far more elegant and parsimonious solution.

My opinion is that, if you do something similar to this, changing nothing mechanically about the character except what is written on the level line, you haven't really changed anything. The fluff is the same, the mechanics are the same; is the text of that one line of the character sheet possessing no slashes really that significant? You can easily play the exact same character using either option, and one takes slightly more work than the other. It doesn't seem that complicated to me, although it appears that many of you disagree. If you want a character with mechanical abilities A, B, and C and backstory X, it doesn't matter whether you use one class or ten to get the same end result.

As far as the class as in-game fluff, are members of the local Thieve's Guild the only people who know how to stab someone in the kidneys? I can see it a little more with magic, but that can be easily mutable if it helps your concept. Classes exist to allow players to play the kind of character they want to play without unbalancing the campaign (the fact that 3.5 is unbalanced is a failing of WotC in designing it, not a refutation of the general intent). If the player has a concept that requires or benefits from abilities possessed by several different classes, he should be able to use them in the interest of competently fulfilling the role which he wishes to play.

Gametime
2010-06-14, 05:20 PM
But if a player builds his character badly and doesn't care about roleplaying either...Why is he playing D&D again?

Answer: he isn't. He will either have improved one or both of his sides or left the group because there's really not much fun in D&D if your character is an hollow shell just slowing down the party in all aspects.

So, yes, D&D will atract players focused solely on optimization, but no, D&D won't atract persons who aren't interested in either roleplaying or mechanics.

I didn't say the player didn't care, I said he was doing them badly. It is entirely possible to try and fail at either optimization or roleplaying.

Further, at the risk of sounding argumentative, I don't think you have evidence to prove that no one has ever played D&D without being interested in either the mechanics or the fluff. I would bet money that somewhere, someone has. There are any number of reasons why, most focusing around social interactions and attempts to play a game enjoyed by one's friends.

My point is that if a player does reasonably poorly at both areas of the game and stays with the group for whatever reason, they are probably not the most visible person there. A highly competent player who can not or will not roleplay, on the other hand, is likely to frequently be in the spotlight but mesh poorly in terms of story. I think that tends to stand out more, and may contribute to the belief that optimization is linked to poor roleplaying.

AstralFire
2010-06-14, 05:36 PM
The only reason I played D&D 3 at all for years was social interaction. I was with subpar RPers and the mechanics of everything bored me witless until the XPH.

Thurbane
2010-06-14, 09:29 PM
Speaking for my group, the dislike for dips is that we like to have characters based on concept first, crunch second. Dips tend to be harder to write into character concepts without being obvious meta- compared to single classing.

Having said that, we are not hard and fast on this, and dips/MC are usually approved by whoever is DMing at the time unless they are serious cheese. :smallwink:

Ozymandias9
2010-06-14, 11:23 PM
The dilemma doesn't exist even in his game, because, as I've said, you can have characters that seem like one class even when they are others. It only exists if you force it to exist; that's the very meaning of a false dilemma.
(I am largely arguing, in this specific quoted reply, the position of a specific other person: it do not mean to speak with authority of what the prior poster believes, but rather his position as I understand it. No offense is intended.

The fact that you can work around a dilemma doesn't mean you force it into existence. He's working primarily with base classes because he has some preconceived concept of what those classes represent to him. To that person, that concept is the class. The dilemma is not introduced for rhetorical effect or artificially introduced to prop up an opinion, but because there is a legitimate conflict between what "class A" means to him and what you are doing with "class A."


Not necessarily Is elegance better? Not if it involves building a brand new PrC to do exactly what my character can already do now, especially if you are the type who builds the mechanics first and the backstory second. Basically, in this situation you've already got your "inelegant" class (D&D multiclassing is actually very elegant, for class based systems) made; building a PrC specifically for that character would take up more time to accomplish the same thing.
Efficiency is not elegance (in my opinion-Utilitarianists would disagree). And I value elegance significantly more.


Yes, and my stance is: Refluffing exists, and that can't hurt roleplay, ever.
When you argue with "always," "never," "ever," "all," or "none" outside of mathematics, you are almost certainly wrong. I don't believe that you will realistically find a situation in which refluffing will have a causal negative link with roleplay, but I do think that there are plenty of situations in which they can be linked to indirectly. A good example is one I've already given: when it causes a conflict with a player's conceptions of a class (since that conception will interact heavily with both fluff and roleplay).



D&D encourages multiclassing and PrCing, and is far less of a pure single class based system than you think it is. You are limiting yourself and other players by assuming that all X classes are the same. You can entirely ditch the fluff and make something entirely new; a warrior who's actually a cleric (spells used for buffing and refluffed as inner strength), a guy possessed by a demon actually just being a sorcerer, etc.
I don't think that it is an exclusive single class position. My argument in this thread is against the concept that "classes were not intended to be taken to completion. I would say that that was intended to be an option, though as the game has expanded the support for that option in comparison to other options has diminished. Essentially, it's the vanilla option-- the simplest choice if you take away all optional systems. I tend to like vanilla.


That's exactly my point... even though I support refluffing farther than that, the DMG is saying "You can be a cleric who acts like a paladin, a barbarian who acts like a sane warrior and goes into a cold fury, a wizard who's a travelling scientist, etc." If bookish wizards don't fit, then a travelling scientist or a curious guy who swiped a wizard's spellbook might.
I have no problems with any of that, absent some game world issue. I would simply probably give them some label other than barbarian or cleric: names are important, particularly when they deal with things with as much baggage as many class archetypes have.


Altering classes is far harder than refluffing, takes far more time than making a multiclass character, and for people who build the character first, requires extra effort to create the same character. If a lot of people want to play X, PrC it out, but you don't need to create a specific PrC for every possible character concept when the classes are broad enough, even without refluffing, to mix and match to fit any character.

Not really. You can even out the BaB and saves, slap a bow on it, and call it a class. And you'd make the people in question (those who have the dislike) much happier.


I don't disagree... your opinion is as valid as mine, yet you are arguing against anybody multiclassing.
No, I'm not, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. I'm answering the initial question: why the dislike. The answer is that that method conflicts with the concept some people have of a class. By making that preference publicly known when looking for people to play with, they self sort: people looking for the same thing from the game will likely have (or at least expect to have) more fun together when playing it.


It's not a pure class game, and never has been. Even before the XP penalties for multiclassing were largely ignored, it was still as much about multiclassing as single classing, and, as I said, both are valid and can be played in the same game.
If you remove the optional systems (specifically PrCs) from core and enforce the favored race rules, it becomes much closer. You're right, it's still not the polar example, but it's worlds closer to that than the current game most people play. And its a lot less mechanically unappealing than a lot of those closer to that polar example.

So, again, the answer to "why the dislike?": because you're moving the experience of this game away from what the person who dislikes dipping is seeking from the system.

{Here, it occurs to me that this argument seems thematically similar to my discussion of D&D relative to class-less systems. I'm not suggesting that if you like D&D for these purposes, you shouldn't play d&d. My discusssion on classless systems was more targeted at the idea that "classes aren't intended to be taken to completion. PrC's exist." As a point of game design, that seems unsupportable: if classes were intended to be used merely as collections of abilities, it would be more realistic to expect a system presented in ability based terms rather than class based terms. I'd don't think multi-classing was unintended, but I don't think that single classing was unintended merely because it was poorly designed.}


I'd say they fit the same archetypes to some degree, yes, but thematically, they can be anything.
So can a lot of things, but they seem to fit them by default (and very closely). While I don't think they were intended solely to replace the PhB classes in question, I do think it reasonable that the designers made some effort to make sure that it was an option.



My opinion is that, if you do something similar to this, changing nothing mechanically about the character except what is written on the level line, you haven't really changed anything. The fluff is the same, the mechanics are the same; is the text of that one line of the character sheet possessing no slashes really that significant?
Yes, I would say it is. Names are important, especially when the names are deliberately evocative of common and heavily connotative ideas.


If the player has a concept that requires or benefits from abilities possessed by several different classes, he should be able to use them in the interest of competently fulfilling the role which he wishes to play.
Then put a little elbow grease in and make the concept a little more concrete. Separate out the elements you're gained from the build that don't fit. Find a name for the idea or separate it into the more general and the more refined elements and give them names. That refined product is your class: it fulfills the exactly the purpose that I see as the purpose of a class (a mechanical abstraction of a character concept). With your permission, I'll laminate it, stick it in filing cabinet 2 or 3 (or 5 if its setting specific), and cherish it always.

Zore
2010-06-14, 11:55 PM
Its almost funny there is all this talk of creating homebrew classes for every character thsat is built multiclass. From my experience the Dms most against dips and multiclassing are the most against homebrew as well. I am still a bit baffled on why there is such a large contingent bent on remaking the wheel, the class system is functional and one of its strengths is unlike a pointbuy system you don't need to make a character from whole cloth every time you make one. If you dislike the class system why play 3.5 and not Gurps or some other system designed for that?

lsfreak
2010-06-15, 12:01 AM
Speaking for my group, the dislike for dips is that we like to have characters based on concept first, crunch second.

While I know your stance from other threads, I'd just like to point out that some of us would argue that - at least in our games - pulling off some concepts requires dipping, no matter if roleplay comes first or crunch. The view of myself and quite a few others is that good optimization is starting with a concept for the character, and finding crunch that fits it so that they're effective at what they try to do. Having an awesome concept in a game that's heavy in both roleplay and combat doesn't mean much if your character is likely to end up splot of bloody mud a few encounters in :smalltongue:

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 12:24 AM
While I know your stance from other threads, I'd just like to point out that some of us would argue that - at least in our games - pulling off some concepts requires dipping, no matter if roleplay comes first or crunch.

And what degree of dipping? One example floated around in this thread was several classes for building for a Assassin with a Shadowdancer dip. Obviously for Hide in Plain Sight. However that dip is not actually "nessecary" for the Assassin as they already can access Invisiblity and get the same ability later. So what about the concept of unseen killer requires the second prestige class dip other then one is arguably a better mechanical option.

If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

Koury
2010-06-15, 12:39 AM
If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

Wizard/Druid/Arcane Heirophant/Mystic Theurge?

Tavar
2010-06-15, 12:45 AM
And what degree of dipping? One example floated around in this thread was several classes for building for a Assassin with a Shadowdancer dip. Obviously for Hide in Plain Sight. However that dip is not actually "nessecary" for the Assassin as they already can access Invisiblity and get the same ability later. So what about the concept of unseen killer requires the second prestige class dip other then one is arguably a better mechanical option.

If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

You know, you were the one who first suggested such a thing.

And in the later versions, well, Shadowdancer does gain some abilities that Assasin doesn't, which fit very well with a shadow-y themed character.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 12:46 AM
If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.
I want to be a ninja. I could be a "Ninja", and be awful at it, or I could be a "Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin/Shadowsun Ninja" and actually be decent at it. Why does my choice about which way I want to be a Ninja matter to you in any way ever?

Koury
2010-06-15, 12:49 AM
Why does my choice about which way I want to be a Ninja matter to you in any way ever?

Clearly because you're doing it wrong (http://xkcd.com/386/).

Coidzor
2010-06-15, 12:51 AM
And what degree of dipping? One example floated around in this thread was several classes for building for a Assassin with a Shadowdancer dip. Obviously for Hide in Plain Sight. However that dip is not actually "nessecary" for the Assassin as they already can access Invisiblity and get the same ability later. So what about the concept of unseen killer requires the second prestige class dip other then one is arguably a better mechanical option.

If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

The alternative route you propose is "Magic, LOL," after all, whereas the shadowdancer dip is "OMG, Class fetures." Surely you see that.

Also, the concept is served provided the concept is, y'know, served. And your only argument to the contrary seems to be, "It offends my sense of aesthetics for reasons that are unclear and in such a way that I will vehemently oppose the rights of others."

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 12:52 AM
Wizard/Druid/Arcane Heirophant/Mystic Theurge?

What is the thematic distinction between the MT and AH in the build? Is there any non-mechanical reason that You couldn't simply have W5/D5/AH10?

A better argument on the point I think you're making would be Folchan Lyricist. FL makes the point very well that you may have a concept in mind that does require 4 classes.

But keep in mind that a high degree of mechanical specificity is something other players may dislike. If you highlight that element, they may find it distasteful.

Runestar
2010-06-15, 12:56 AM
Speaking for my group, the dislike for dips is that we like to have characters based on concept first, crunch second. Dips tend to be harder to write into character concepts without being obvious meta- compared to single classing.

Which doesn't make sense. If your group is concept first, then all the more you should allow multiclassing/dipping, however aggressive, to better flesh out your character concept. What is the point of steadfastly sticking to a single class if the end result does not let you do anything your character ought to be capable of (by virtue of his backstory) or do it well? :smallconfused:

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 12:56 AM
What is the thematic distinction between the MT and AH in the build? Is there any non-mechanical reason that You couldn't simply have W5/D5/AH10?
Why does he need a non-mechanical reason? The fact remains that a Wiz 5/Dru 5/AH 10 is awful and Wiz 3/Dru 3/AH 10/MT 4 is somewhat less so, and is clearly following the same theme. Why on earth does this bother you? It's not like Mystic Theurges had any fluff to begin with.

"I want to mix my druid and arcane spellcasting," is the (basic) character concept. Why does the particular mechanical choices made to create that character matter? Hell, why not force them to be a Wizard 10/Druid 10?

lsfreak
2010-06-15, 01:00 AM
If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

Plain old 'sorcerer, master of magic, I am power.' Guess what. Archmage and Incantatrix both make a master of magic far better than a sorcerer does, even ignoring the utterly broken things of incantatrix. Want to be a good assassin or ninja-type? Probably need rogue, shadowdancer, swordsage, and either assassin or shadowlord, depending on how exactly you want to go about it. A good, nonprecision, non-magic archer? Fighter/barbarian/ranger/deepwoods sniper/peerless archer is one of the only ways to pull it off and not suck compared even to a single-class barbarian charger. Any dual-progression concept needs two prestige classes to pull off.

Then there's the opposite end of the scale. Someone who dips in a bunch of prestige classes and ends up sucking, because let's face it, 90% of PrC's are utter crap.

Number of classes you involve, or number of books you use, has zero bearing on how good or bad the build is. All of those builds I posted, with the exception of maybe the sorcerer, don't have anything on a straight wizard20, and yet they pull off their specific concept far better than other alternatives.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 01:13 AM
Why does he need a non-mechanical reason? The fact remains that a Wiz 5/Dru 5/AH 10 is awful and Wiz 3/Dru 3/AH 10/MT 4 is somewhat less so, and is clearly following the same theme. Why on earth does this bother you? It's not like Mystic Theurges had any fluff to begin with.


If you see W5/D5/AH5 as awful, then you're probably playing at a significant level of mechanical rigor and a high power level. That means that you're trying to solve a problem that the rest of players might not even agree exists: if it does for you, find a solution. But it does mean that you might very well be playing a different game than the person who sees no issue.

Now if the entry was W3/D3, then I would see a significant problem regardless of mechanical rigor or power level: why would a character whose goal was to learn to meld the desperate arts of arcane and divine casting suddenly choose to stop doing so late in their career?

None the less, I would significantly prefer just to tack 4 more levels onto AH. As a matter of Principle, I feel that that "MT 4" should have distinct thematic meaning (regardless of whether or not it is the thematic meaning that the initial author provides).


Why does he need a non-mechanical reason? Oooooo. I wish someone had asked this earlier. It really does highlight a more basic issue at the heart of this.

In that vein, my answer is:
For games where I would see this as an issue, mechanics are not a goal of play. They are there merely as a tool to enable and shape role-playing through introduction of randomness and restriction.

It is a case close to the extreme that Stormwind excluded from his argument (somewhat dismissively referring to this as "Drama Queen" play).

Tar Palantir
2010-06-15, 01:19 AM
Yes, I would say it is. Names are important, especially when the names are deliberately evocative of common and heavily connotative ideas.


Then put a little elbow grease in and make the concept a little more concrete. Separate out the elements you're gained from the build that don't fit. Find a name for the idea or separate it into the more general and the more refined elements and give them names. That refined product is your class: it fulfills the exactly the purpose that I see as the purpose of a class (a mechanical abstraction of a character concept). With your permission, I'll laminate it, stick it in filing cabinet 2 or 3 (or 5 if its setting specific), and cherish it always.

I have played, in my six years of roleplaying, at least forty different characters, upwards of seventy if you count NPCs with an equal level of backstory and mechanical prominence as player characters, such as recurring villains and allies. Of those, by your definition, at least half and probably closer to sixty percent would have had their own class, just for them. Many are relatively similar archetypes, as I tend to play a fairly large proportion of melee characters, but between just my melee characters you'll find nine base classes and eleven prestige classes, mixed and matched in dozens of combinations, with different alternate class features, maneuvers, soulmelds, bound vestiges, and/or psionic powers. Every character I make explores some new mechanical variation I've never tried before, blended with, augmented by, or enhancing one or more of the elements I have previously used to create something that does the same very broad job (that of the frontline fighter) in a new and exciting way. That brings up another point, actually, that I hadn't considered until now: given that I have very rarely played the same, or almost the same, character twice, why make a class for a combination of mechanics that will never be used again, or at best, would be entirely rewritten before seeing play for a second time? My characters are just that-characters-not archetypes large enough to constitute their own class. They are individuals who, through their own specific combination of training, instinct, and experience, fight in a way that is unlike anyone else. That level of extremely narrow specificity and specialization, which is wonderful for making a character unique, would make a class that could not accommodate any more than that single individual.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 01:24 AM
For games where I would see this as an issue, mechanics are not a goal of play. They are there merely as a tool to enable and shape role-playing through introduction of randomness and restriction.
...exactly? Classes are a means to an end, a series of rules regarding randomness and restrictions that differentiate D&D from, say, freeform roleplay. From a roleplaying perspective, Wiz 3/Dru 3/AH 10/MT 4 and Wiz 5/Dru 5/AH 10 are identical. So why on earth do you have a problem with someone choosing the version that, ya know, actually works?

Koury
2010-06-15, 01:30 AM
If you see W5/D5/AH5 as awful, then you're probably playing at a significant level of mechanical rigor and a high power level.

Eh? W5/D5/AH10 is significantly worse then either W20 or D20, by pretty much any metric aside from spells per day.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 01:31 AM
...exactly? Classes are a means to an end, a series of rules regarding randomness and restrictions that differentiate D&D from, say, freeform roleplay. From a roleplaying perspective, Wiz 3/Dru 3/AH 10/MT 4 and Wiz 5/Dru 5/AH 10 are identical. So why on earth do you have a problem with someone choosing the version that, ya know, actually works?

Classes having a distinct thematic point are part of what I see as one of the most basic restrictions by which I see them shaping role play. That's simply what a class is to me.


They are individuals who, through their own specific combination of training, instinct, and experience, fight in a way that is unlike anyone else. That level of extremely narrow specificity and specialization, which is wonderful for making a character unique, would make a class that could not accommodate any more than that single individual
Then you are making a very mechanically precise character: how many of those mechanics could be reasonably represented as, say, sneak attack. Or some form of DR.

While I do enjoy the occasional game with mechanically complex characters, that's an extreme exception for me. If something can be reasonably portrayed by a fighter level BAB, I'm unlikely to look for another way to portray it.


Eh? W5/D5/AH10 is significantly worse then either W20 or D20, by pretty much any metric aside from spells per day.

1) If T1 is your balance level, you're aiming for high power. Not D20 or W20 isn't usually seen as awful.

2) It's very possible for a player who doesn't optimize (or deliberately optimizes at a lower level or is just bad at it) to play any of those 3 characters at a lower power level than T1.

3) I play an awful lot of games where nothing short of the gap between an unoptimized fighter and a creatively played wizard will be noticeable.

Koury
2010-06-15, 01:55 AM
1) If T1 is your balance level, you're aiming for high power. Not D20 or W20 isn't usually seen as awful.

2) It's very possible for a player who doesn't optimize (or deliberately optimizes at a lower level or is just bad at it) to play any of those 3 characters at a lower power level than T1.

3) I play an awful lot of games where nothing short of the gap between an unoptimized fighter and a creatively played wizard will be noticeable.

Balance wasn't really my point, to be honest. What tier a combo plays at is irrelevent. Option A and B are identical, roleplay-wise. Option A is also better at that role, mechanically. Unless my concept is "Druid/Wizard, but crappier then others," why would I not want the more effective one?

Besides, I would think someone who is a master of both arcane and divine magic would be stronger then someone who is simply a master of one. Thats not the case with W5/D5/AH10 vs W20 or D20. W3/D3/AH10/MT4 at least can cast 9ths.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-15, 02:01 AM
Then you are making a very mechanically precise character: how many of those mechanics could be reasonably represented as, say, sneak attack. Or some form of DR.

While I do enjoy the occasional game with mechanically complex characters, that's an extreme exception for me. If something can be reasonably portrayed by a fighter level BAB, I'm unlikely to look for another way to portray it.

Mechanical precision is a game of its own, to me. Carefully crafting a masterpiece with just the right mix of levels, taken at just the right times, with a delicate mix of the perfect feats and skills, topped with exactly the race I need to pull it all together, is like creating a work of art. Memorable roleplaying is beautiful as well, with all of the quirks and flaws, beliefs and prejudices, habits and preferences, history and heritage, hopes and dreams that come together to make a marvelous being. Why settle for less, in either area? Whether its in the fluff or the crunch, specificity and uniqueness make a character stand out, even as generic choices tend towards blandness. If you wouldn't roleplay every wizard the same, why build them all the same? If you have the tools, and you have the time, why not make exactly what you want, both from a mechanical and a roleplaying perspective? I can see neglecting one or the other when you have a limited amount of time to devout to your creation, or when you are away from your reference material, but these are both negative factors holding you back from the ideal goal, situations where you settle for "good enough" rather than "perfect". Willfully choosing, with no external limitations, to do a shoddy job in one area devalues your character as a whole, like having a well-written film with terrible actors.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 02:14 AM
Besides, I would think someone who is a master of both arcane and divine magic would be stronger then someone who is simply a master of one. Thats not the case with W5/D5/AH10 vs W20 or D20. W3/D3/AH10/MT4 at least can cast 9ths.

I think they would be weaker. They would have to give up a degree of mastery in order to learn how to meld the two disciplines. This means that they should be advancing each discipline to a lesser degree than someone who focused only on that discipline.

But that's my interpretation of the concept. Yours may differ. But if I'm going to make the class, I'd want there to be a non-mechanical reason for MT that is distinct from AH. If you want to make it differently, that's fine. But if you're going to constantly point out how much you like something I find unappealing, I'm probably going to like playing with you a little less (and likely try to find a table with aesthetics closer to mine).


Willfully choosing, with no external limitations, to do a shoddy job in one area devalues your character as a whole, like having a well-written film with terrible actors.
Like you point out, it is a game in itself. Sometimes I enjoy that game. Often I don't. Moreover, while I agree with the basis of the Stormwind Fallacy, I also agree with his explicitly noted exceptions: TO and "drama queen" play. I find I enjoy something very close to the later for most of my games. And when you are only looking to the rules to further role-playing, then playing the CharOp mini-game is going to detract precisely because the rules are serving a different purpose than in a more standard game.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 02:15 AM
1) If T1 is your balance level, you're aiming for high power. Not D20 or W20 isn't usually seen as awful.
There is no conceivable qualifying classes where ClassOne 5/ClassTwo 5/Theurgic Class 10 is not massively weaker than ClassOne 20 or ClassTwo 20. It just doesn't exist. If you haven't banned the entry classes, then you shouldn't be banning their combination.

In other words, would you say the same about a Healer 5/Warmage 5/Mystic Theurge 10? I don't think so.

Godskook
2010-06-15, 02:24 AM
If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

"Best assassin in the world" is not a mechanical concept, it is a fluff one. And the "Best X in the world(or at least the story)" is a really common trope among our non-gaming fantasy/sci-fi. Why would we, the players, not bring that to the table? Sure, it requires mechanical aspects, but so do most concepts.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 02:30 AM
In other words, would you say the same about a Healer 5/Warmage 5/Mystic Theurge 10? I don't think so.

That depends: are you asking if I would think that weaker than Healer 20 is often thought of as a bad balance point, I would say it is. If you are asking if I think it is a bad balance point, well... I generally play with groups that regularly end up with T4 wizards without intending to do so and involve at least one player who really doesn't want to do anything in combat but heal.

None of the people I play with on a regular basis have any significant interest in optimizing. I regularly play with two people for who have little interest in doing anything in combat other than healing (interestingly, one of them is fairly relatively violent at the game table).

My interest in CharOp is probably the greatest of most of the groups, and that's more or less limited to finding TO exercises interesting (something that resulted in a habit of reading up on balance to make sure I wasn't overpowering encounters).

Thurbane
2010-06-15, 02:31 AM
While I know your stance from other threads, I'd just like to point out that some of us would argue that - at least in our games - pulling off some concepts requires dipping, no matter if roleplay comes first or crunch. The view of myself and quite a few others is that good optimization is starting with a concept for the character, and finding crunch that fits it so that they're effective at what they try to do. Having an awesome concept in a game that's heavy in both roleplay and combat doesn't mean much if your character is likely to end up splot of bloody mud a few encounters in :smalltongue:

Which doesn't make sense. If your group is concept first, then all the more you should allow multiclassing/dipping, however aggressive, to better flesh out your character concept. What is the point of steadfastly sticking to a single class if the end result does not let you do anything your character ought to be capable of (by virtue of his backstory) or do it well? :smallconfused:
...just for the record, I never said dips were "badwrongfun" or anything of the sort...I simply said that's not how our group does it. We're all cool with our expectations - no one feels oppressed or left out. It just so happens that we seem to be a group of 7 gamers, all 30+, many from a 1E background, who enjoy single classed characters. :smallwink:

I'm a strong advocate of "different strokes for different folks" - if other groups out there have a diametrically opposed opinions to mine on dips and such, more power to them. Whatever works for a particular group is A-OK with me. :smallbiggrin:

Koury
2010-06-15, 02:35 AM
I think they would be weaker. They would have to give up a degree of mastery in order to learn how to meld the two disciplines. This means that they should be advancing each discipline to a lesser degree than someone who focused only on that discipline.

But thats not the concept I want to play. I don't want to play "Guy who is good at many types of magics." I want to play "Guy who wields arcane magic to rival the best Wizards AND wields divine magic most only dream of."

Why must my concept be required to lack on both sides?


But that's my interpretation of the concept. Yours may differ. But if I'm going to make the class, I'd want there to be a non-mechanical reason for MT that is distinct from AH. If you want to make it differently, that's fine. But if you're going to constantly point out how much you like something I find unappealing, I'm probably going to like playing with you a little less (and likely try to find a table with aesthetics closer to mine).

A non mechanical reason?

"I am Corretha. I have studied magic my whole life. Not just the magic I learned in my youth, at my mentors tower, but the magic I found myself able to draw from nature as well.

I sought others who were like me and, to my surprise, was able to find and learn from them. I trained under many of the greatest mages to ever live and, in time, surpassed even their powers. But it was not enough.

I now ventured out on my own and found ways to augment my natural casting through my studies. My power continued to grow exponentially. Now, as my adventuring days draw to a close, I am satisfied with the way my life has gone. I have managed to blend the arcane and divine in ways no one else has managed. My name is has been recorded in history books and sung by bards the world over.

Perhaps it is time I teach what I know to others. Who knows, maybe one day I will tutor someone who is able to surpass even me?

Naw..."

~Corretha, W3/D3/AH10/MT3, upon retiring.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 02:53 AM
But thats not the concept I want to play. I don't want to play "Guy who is good at many types of magics." I want to play "Guy who wields arcane magic to rival the best Wizards AND wields divine magic most only dream of."

I would question "being more powerful than everyone else" as a concept. But to each his own.



A non mechanical reason?

"I am Corretha. I have studied magic my whole life. Not just the magic I learned in my youth, at my mentors tower, but the magic I found myself able to draw from nature as well.

I sought others who were like me and, to my surprise, was able to find and learn from them. I trained under many of the greatest mages to ever live and, in time, surpassed even their powers. But it was not enough.

I now ventured out on my own and found ways to augment my natural casting through my studies. My power continued to grow exponentially. Now, as my adventuring days draw to a close, I am satisfied with the way my life has gone. I have managed to blend the arcane and divine in ways no one else has managed. My name is has been recorded in history books and sung by bards the world over.

Perhaps it is time I teach what I know to others. Who knows, maybe one day I will tutor someone who is able to surpass even me?

Naw..."

~Corretha, W3/D3/AH10/MT3, upon retiring.

Good. It's decent. You've successfully demonstrated that


you may have a concept in mind that does require 4 classes. I still think FL makes that point more directly.



In a couple hours I will be more or less sans-internet for a week or so as I travel. Thus, at the risk of quoting myself twice in the same post*


I don't necessarily equate it with role-playing, but rather with a player who is looking for a far more mechanically rigorous game than I usually run. It's essentially a sorting mechanism. You and I would likely clash if we were to play at the same tables long term: saying up front that the game will be mechanically simple and fairly straightforward (and it probably is better to simply sat that) is merely a way for everyone to know what they're getting into.

The mere fact that I dislike playing the way that you do doesn't mean I think your way is wrong. I just don't usually enjoy it. I'm not trying to convince anyone to come over to my side: someone asked why the dislike exists-- I'm trying to answer the question from the perspective of someone for whom it does, in fact, exist. (Well, that and respond to people who seem to be saying it doesn't or shouldn't exist.)



*Heh--risk. I'm reading this aloud as I type just because I love the sound of my own voice.

Koury
2010-06-15, 03:23 AM
I would question "being more powerful than everyone else" as a concept. But to each his own.

Concept (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept)
1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

How does "Person who, through blending two different styles of magic, becomes better at both then anyone else ever has" not fit? :smallconfused:


Good. It's decent. Glad you liked it. I could do better if I, you know, put actual effort into it, but yeah. I liked the whole 'Level 19' part, personally. :smalltongue:


I still think FL makes that point more directly. Probably, I'm just relativly unfamiliar with them.


The mere fact that I dislike playing the way that you do doesn't mean I think your way is wrong. I just don't usually enjoy it. I'm not trying to convince anyone to come over to my side: someone asked why the dislike exists-- I'm trying to answer the question from the perspective of someone for whom it does, in fact, exist. But does having 12 classes written on my Class line actually make the game worse for you? And if so, why?

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 03:37 AM
How does "Person who, through blending two different styles of magic, becomes better at both then anyone else ever has" not fit? :smallconfused:

I was unclear: I meant that I find the appeal of such a concept questionable. But tastes differ.


But does having 12 classes written on my Class line actually make the game worse for you? And if so, why?

If its just the slashes, it rarely will be. That element in isolation is merely an aesthetic concern: I prefer each class to carry discrete thematic weight. I say rarely because while your character's structure generally won't be be of note to me, I happened upon the occasional person who happened to emphasize it in a way that it was unpleasant.

More generally though, it's not a direct problem but rather a easily visible indication of something that is likely to be a problem. If you're putting a great deal of effort into precise mechanical builds, in my experience you're likely looking for a table that has a higher degree of mechanical rigor than I am usually interested in running or playing. One of us likey isn't going to be getting what we want from the table.

It is probably less divisive to simply say that, but noting a dislike of the the indicator is an effective (if highly imperfect) sorting mechanism.


Postscriptum: While I have no real method to demonstrate this, my inclination is to believe that my aesthetic dislike of heavy multi-classing and my preference towards rules-lite tables likely have similar roots.

Koury
2010-06-15, 03:52 AM
I was unclear: I meant that I find the appeal of such a concept questionable. But tastes differ. Ah, understood. Not a big fan of V then, I take it? :vaarsuvius:

But it is of note that I would also have some reason behind needing to be the very best (like no one ever was). And that I'd much rather play the character from low levels as opposed to starting in mid to high levels.


More generally though, it's not a direct problem but rather a easily visible indication of something that is likely to be a problem. If you're putting a great deal of effort into precise mechanical builds, in my experience you're likely looking for a table that has a higher degree of mechanical rigor than I am usually interested in running or playing. One of us likey isn't going to be getting what we want from the table. This seems rather steriotype-y to me.

*shrug* I like to think we could both coexist together at a table without any problems arising.

Ozymandias9
2010-06-15, 04:04 AM
Ah, understood. Not a big fan of V then, I take it? :vaarsuvius:

Actually, I am, but only becuase s/he's LGBTerrific.


This seems rather steriotype-y to me.

*shrug* I like to think we could both coexist together at a table without any problems arising.

I imagine we could certainly co-exist: you seem reasonable and my vast egotism precludes me from considering myself unreasonable in any way.

But while we could make it work, it's going to require heavy compromise from one or both of us. There would almost certainly be tables better suited to either of us if we're looking for extended play.

To use an unnecessary metaphor: we could probably find a restaurant we agree on, but if we're just looking to find a group of co-workers to eat lunch with (rather than, say, catching up with friends over dinner), it's probably easier to find two separate groups of co-workers such that we can both eat our preferred food.

Koury
2010-06-15, 04:14 AM
I imagine we could certainly co-exist: you seem reasonable and my vast egotism precludes me from considering myself unreasonable in any way. That's rather unreasonable of you.

As for everything else, it's late for me and I'm not particularly dedicated to 'proving' anything here. I do think we could play together and both have tons of fun, however. After all, I'm a nice guy. And like long walks on the beach, cudling up with a good movie, and video games. Please love me!

tiercel
2010-06-15, 04:18 AM
The whole thing about class dipping, to me, is just another manifestation of the common "optimization playstyle" issue that comes up all the time in groups. How much does everyone optimize their characters, and how much is that the focus of the game for any given player?

There's no single right or wrong answer to this, but when one player is optimizing much less or much more than the rest of the party, it can create exasperation/tension with the rest of the gaming group if they all have more or less the opposite view.

Having a lot of class dips can send the impression "I'm more interested in optimizing my character's power than forming a coherent character concept, though I can certainly spin some kind of rationalization to smokescreen all my cherrypicking." On the other hand, it can well mean "look, I want to play an X and this combination of abilities is the closest thing I can do to making X / making X effective."

When I DM, players who seem more directly interested in the latter find me very willing to customize classes (y'know, like it talks about doing right in the PHB, and like the variants in Unearthed Arcana explicitly show examples of). I'm not *against* level-dipping per se, but if a certain concept is really the aim a player is going for, I'd rather make it simpler by creating a custom class that the player can use on its own, or with at least fewer class hops.

If a player insists on using Wiz3/Blob2/Perfliggle1/PunPun2/AYBABTU1/ArcPlumber2/KitchenSink1 instead of considering the possibility of putting several of these dips into a custom Wiz variant or prestige class, then it tells me the player is more interested in the mechanical power-up than the concept, and then I need to consider how well that matches the desires of the other players. If everyone is optimizing their eyeballs out, then I genetically engineer my monsters and we have some Titanic Clash of the Titans; if they just want to make a character and have a more casual "beer and pretzels" game, I encourage SuperDippy the Boy Wonder to settle down a little so that I don't have to cybernetically enhance my bad guys to challenge him and steamroll the rest of the party.

erikun
2010-06-15, 04:34 AM
From my experience the Dms most against dips and multiclassing are the most against homebrew as well.
Funny, my experience is exactly the opposite. I've found that most DMs who dislike heavy multiclassing would rather just create a single class for the player's character concept. The DMs who are hostile to homebrew, in my experience, are the ones who allow anything official, ban anything third party, and refuse to make any changes to classes as printed.

Ravens_cry
2010-06-15, 04:34 AM
Unless the DM is an experienced optimiser themselves, it's hard to look over a character sheet made from a bunch of different sources and see if it fits the general power level they have set for the campaign, due to the complex interaction between disparate class features that is the hallmark of an extensive optimiser.

Thespianus
2010-06-15, 05:54 AM
I don't mind dipping unless it gets out of hand. I realize that "out of hand" is a subjective term, though. ;)

One rule of thumb that I employ is thematics. If you go Focused Specialist Conjuration, then dip two levels of Unseen Seer (a Divination-based PrC) to get juicy Sneak Attack dice, and then dip into Holy Scourge (Evocation PrC) and then into Abjurant Champion (abjuration based PrC) , then something is just wrong thematically.

While the classes might just be a collection of crunch, the different spell schools should (IMHO) be treated as different areas of knowledge in the game, and bouncing around like that just doesn't seem right.

Stacking Unseen Seer with Eldritch Knight (non school-specific PrC) is ok, but of the thematics go all over the place, it just seems wrong to me.

And, naturally, YMMV

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-06-15, 08:43 AM
Massively multiclassed and dippy characters are a bit of a headache to referee at first, but you get used to them.

What I don't like about dipping and multiclassing is that it's necessary to do so to create a character that reflects anything outside of the few archetypes that the creators chose for us.

That's why I'm going with generic classes, and multiple talent trees. Far less need to multiclass when you can select your class features from a big list - even if you decide you still need to take another class to make what you want, you generally only need to do it once.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 10:12 AM
You know, you were the one who first suggested such a thing.

And in the later versions, well, Shadowdancer does gain some abilities that Assasin doesn't, which fit very well with a shadow-y themed character.

Critical Research Failure!

Post #48 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8689577&highlight=Shadowdancer#post8689577): Oldest hit on a Shadowdancer word search. Build in question a Rogue/Monk/Assassin/Shadowdancer

Post #81 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8695941#post8695941): My first post in the thread. For that matter no mention of such a build.

:smallbiggrin: (though yes I did discuss it in a post preceding the post you quoted)

Tavar
2010-06-15, 10:44 AM
Critical Research Failure!

Post #48 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8689577&highlight=Shadowdancer#post8689577): Oldest hit on a Shadowdancer word search. Build in question a Rogue/Monk/Assassin/Shadowdancer

Post #81 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8695941#post8695941): My first post in the thread. For that matter no mention of such a build.

:smallbiggrin: (though yes I did discuss it in a post preceding the post you quoted)
Very, very, very wrong. The post you're mentioning says that you could go straight rogue OR shadowdancer OR Assassin. You're post is the first one to mention the dip here:

Or even templates, I'd consider say a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin with one of the Hide in Plain Sight granting templates a potential exception to my rule over dabbling in Shadowdancer.




Funny, my experience is exactly the opposite. I've found that most DMs who dislike heavy multiclassing would rather just create a single class for the player's character concept. The DMs who are hostile to homebrew, in my experience, are the ones who allow anything official, ban anything third party, and refuse to make any changes to classes as printed.

Yeah, I've pretty much never seen that. I've seen many, many PbP where the DM both bans homebrew and limits multiclassing heavily. The one's most open to homebrew tend to be the ones who have the least limits and are the most open-minded.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 12:28 PM
I was having some fun before but:


To me, you are no less of a rogue regardless of whether you are a rogue20 or a rogue/monk/assassin/shadowdancer mix. :smallsmile:

Emphasis mine. Because its what I was referring to and where got the idea from. My reading of the post and its intent is that the all of the highlighted above in one build is cool with the poster. You want to split hair on the previous 'or' versus 'and' statements and overall intent of the post so be it... but that's where I got the idea from. So kindly do not cram any more words in my mouth, please.

To get back on topic I maintain that for there is a not strong need to exceed three total classes or utilize more then one prestige class to realize a character concept.

Zore
2010-06-15, 01:23 PM
To get back on topic I maintain that for there is a not strong need to exceed three total classes or utilize more then one prestige class to realize a character concept.

Tell me how to fulfill this concept in three classes or a single prestige class

A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.

or

A man with a large managerie of creatures mundane and magical who has taught himself to fight in their style.


I've built these characters and others like them and they both took more than three classes or two prestige classes.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-15, 01:36 PM
A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.

That's actually a very interesting idea. With the proper balance of theurgic classes, you could accomplish a wide variety of different lesser magical effects. I need to run the numbers on this....

The Glyphstone
2010-06-15, 01:40 PM
Just for giggles, not because I have a stake in the argument:

A multiclass Cleric/Shadowcaster/Warlock with the following feats:
-Bind Vestige
-Hidden Talent
-Magical Training

He studies the art of pact-making, has innate psionic talent that he works to cultivate, and was taught some cantrip-level arcane magic as part of his upbringing. He understands and speaks (has ranks in) Truespeech, using it to augment certain spells that he can cast (Cleric spells listed in ToM that need Truespeech checks). But although he works at and studies these lesser arts, he's not good at them, instead pouring the majority of his effort and development into the twin disciplines of shadow magic and divine casting, while occasionally tapping into the fel power infused into his blood by an ancestor.

It meets the requirements of actively studying all magical styles ,though it doesn't fit what you probably wanted, which was for him to be good at all those styles.

Caphi
2010-06-15, 01:40 PM
That's actually a very interesting idea. With the proper balance of theurgic classes, you could accomplish a wide variety of different lesser magical effects. I need to run the numbers on this....

Assuming you could find all the right prestige classes, you could get two functional levels in each one per seven levels by connecting them all in a ring. Supposing three levels in each, excepting 1 for Binder due to Improved Binding, you'd end up doing them all as level 5's... at ECL 25. Not a great prospect.

Tavar
2010-06-15, 01:58 PM
Emphasis mine. Because its what I was referring to and where got the idea from. My reading of the post and its intent is that the all of the highlighted above in one build is cool with the poster. You want to split hair on the previous 'or' versus 'and' statements and overall intent of the post so be it... but that's where I got the idea from. So kindly do not cram any more words in my mouth, please.

So, ignoring intent and misusing one's statements isn't putting words into someone's mouth? Because that's what you're doing. The words or, and, not, etc have a great influence on the meaning of a post, and if you aren't going to consider that when you reply to them, what exactly are you considering?

Gametime
2010-06-15, 02:15 PM
A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.



Did this one work out well? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-15, 03:24 PM
Assuming you could find all the right prestige classes, you could get two functional levels in each one per seven levels by connecting them all in a ring. Supposing three levels in each, excepting 1 for Binder due to Improved Binding, you'd end up doing them all as level 5's... at ECL 25. Not a great prospect.

You could also use Earth Spell to get into the theurge classes early for the wizard and cleric classes, and Eldritch Disciple can be entered at Warlock 1. Ignoring Truenaming for the moment, since the only theurge-like for truespeaking has an alignment requirment counter to Tenebrous Apostate, you can have Wizard1/Cleric1/Warlock1/Binder1/Psion3/Shadowcaster3/Anima Mage 2/Noctumancer2/Psychic Theurge2/Eldritch Disciple 2/Eldritch Theurge 2, for the casting/invoking/whatever of a 7th level wizard, 4th level cleric, 5th level warlock, 3rd level binder, 5th level psion, and 5th level shadowcaster at ECL 20. Not exactly stellar, obviously, but I'm sure you could do something with it.

lsfreak
2010-06-15, 04:32 PM
Not exactly stellar, obviously, but I'm sure you could do something with it.

Not particularly. At level 20, casting as a 7th level wizard doesn't cut it. This is what I was talking about: a lot of classes doesn't mean the character is the min/max character that those who dislike dipping seem to fear. It's a concept, and the character is optimized within that concept, but that doesn't mean the concept is overpowering, or even powerful at all. It may appear to be, but it's probably on-par with a high-level single-class fighter (that is: much of the power comes from pure WBL), and way the hell below a single-class any-other-caster. Number of classes has no correlation with the power of the character.

Amphetryon
2010-06-15, 04:44 PM
To get back on topic I maintain that for there is a not strong need to exceed three total classes or utilize more then one prestige class to realize a character concept.I maintain that this is only true for some, specific concepts, or is modified by criteria like 'within the accepted books and power level of XYZ campaign.'

For instance, thrower builds are a reasonably common concept and request. They most often end up talking about 1) Cloistered Cleric/Scout/Ranger (for Swift Hunter)/Master Thrower/XYZ; 2) Rogue/Ranger/Invisible Blade/Master Thrower; or 3)Rogue/Fighter/Bloodstorm Blade/Master Thrower or 4)Rogue/Ranger/Warblade/Bloodstorm Blade/XYZ.

I've seen precious few builds focused on throwing that used LESS than four classes unless something in the OP specifically forbade that level of multiclassing.

erikun
2010-06-15, 06:24 PM
Did this one work out well? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Well there is the Omnicaster (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3945177), which has 9th-level arcane spells, 9th-level divine spells, 9th-level psionic powers, lesser invocations, four soulmelds, a chakra bind, 4th-level vestiges, 5th-level shadowcasting, Perfected Map truenaming, and a maximized UMD skill. It does break a few rules, such as not taking two prestige classes at the same time and no taking dual progression in gestalt, but it does have a lot of abilities.

Pluto
2010-06-15, 06:39 PM
A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.
Independent Research + 5 minutes homebrew + Mental Pinnacle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm) as inspiration.

Zore
2010-06-15, 06:49 PM
Independent Research + 5 minutes homebrew + Mental Pinnacle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/spells/mentalPinnacle.htm) as inspiration.
That was a question where I assume no homebrew. Plus that would be terrible to balance with invocations and shadowcasting or binding.

Runestar
2010-06-15, 07:16 PM
To get back on topic I maintain that for there is a not strong need to exceed three total classes or utilize more then one prestige class to realize a character concept.

Realise a concept, probably. Ensure that it is strong enough to hold its own in a party so as not to become dead weight or a liability to the players? Not necessarily.

My age old question - stat out the offspring of a werebear barbarian and succubus bard using class lvs alone, using your limitations. Ensure that it is viable in gameplay. The CO boards used 2 classes and 4-6? prcs.

Dance. :smallamused:

The Glyphstone
2010-06-15, 07:42 PM
Realise a concept, probably. Ensure that it is strong enough to hold its own in a party so as not to become dead weight or a liability to the players? Not necessarily.

My age old question - stat out the offspring of a werebear barbarian and succubus bard using class lvs alone, using your limitations. Ensure that it is viable in gameplay. The CO boards used 2 classes and 4-6? prcs.

Dance. :smallamused:

Half-Fiend Racial Class 1/Wizard 19. :smallcool:

Templates aren't necessarily passed on, so he could be pure human on the werebear's side. Say, for some reason, that his fiendish parentage didn't manifest fully, so he doesn't go all the way through the Half-Fiend class. And there's no rule ever printed that says a child has to emulate either parent's class, assuming they have one.

I think I'm on a roll for subverting people's intended-to-be-impossible build requests here. And I'm a diehard proponent of dipping all over the place to modularize your character to perfectly meet a concept.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 07:52 PM
I still don't see why you find it any of your business to judge how anyone achieves the realization of the character concept they want to play. Unless you're claiming that a heavily-multiclassed character is inherently more powerful, which is simply not the case. A Wizard 20 can be overpowered, far, far more easily than can a Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin/Shadowsun Ninja. No one has yet answered why this matters to you at all.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 08:47 PM
Tell me how to fulfill this concept in three classes or a single prestige class

A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.

I personally always believe my statements are to be taken with a dosage of common sense.

Every form of magic is an incredibly subjective. For example would that include every possible supernatural ability (explicitly magical by SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities)) as a form of magic. Is it merely how those abilities are accessed via class levels, so you would need to take wizard/sorcerer/bard/cleric/druid/warlock/warmage/wu-jen/beguiler/duskblade/etc/etc/etc where before you'd even cover them once all you'd be into epic levels.

If we really want to remove the common sense though, there's always a certain kobold. Wizard, Shapechange spell, snake familiar. Turn into Sarruhk. Win D&D. (And I know there are several other ways to do this, the original is low level and its a template+class+PrC mix)

To get at this in a sane game I'd not bother trying to be able to use all forms but instead be sure I had high knowledge ranks to play who has studied them all. While maybe something like a Cleric/Mage/PrC of a magic deity with access to Anyspell and other such replicating magic. Which would achieve the just about every sort of practical end effect by covering the all the schools of magic.

Zore
2010-06-15, 08:59 PM
I personally always believe my statements are to be taken with a dosage of common sense.

Every form of magic is an incredibly subjective. For example would that include every possible supernatural ability (explicitly magical by SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities)) as a form of magic. Is it merely how those abilities are accessed via class levels, so you would need to take wizard/sorcerer/bard/cleric/druid/warlock/warmage/wu-jen/beguiler/duskblade/etc/etc/etc where before you'd even cover them once all you'd be into epic levels.

If we really want to remove the common sense though, there's always a certain kobold. Wizard, Shapechange spell, snake familiar. Turn into Sarruhk. Win D&D. (And I know there are several other ways to do this, the original is low level and its a template+class+PrC mix)

To get at this in a sane game I'd not bother trying to be able to use all forms but instead be sure I had high knowledge ranks to play who has studied them all. While maybe something like a Cleric/Mage/PrC of a magic deity with access to Anyspell and other such replicating magic. Which would achieve the just about every sort of practical end effect by covering the all the schools of magic.

A 'sane game'? Really? That character concept was insanely weak mechanically, though fun to play. Why do you think its insane? It would be slaughtered by anyone who was a modicum more focused.

And no, as far as I'm aware no multiclass Divine/Arcanist can mimic the inifinite uses of Pact magic or Invocations, nor can they really give you access to certain psionic abilities or Truenamer abilities. And If I can only have a single PrC I'm stuck at 8/8 or 7/9 Casting and few enough spells per day at higher levels I couldn't reasonably mimic anything.

Thats besides the point however, I was giving an example of a character I made in a game I actually played. I have a ton of characters that can not be forced into three total classes and be at all effective, he was just the most convenient to illustrate my point.

Seriously, a Wizard/Cleric/PrC doesn't fit the concept I laid out and cannot do the things I envisioned the character as able to do. Its a poor substitute, though markedly more powerful.

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 10:20 PM
I still don't see why you find it any of your business to judge how anyone achieves the realization of the character concept they want to play. Unless you're claiming that a heavily-multiclassed character is inherently more powerful, which is simply not the case. A Wizard 20 can be overpowered, far, far more easily than can a Rogue/Swordsage/Shadow Dancer/Assassin/Shadowsun Ninja. No one has yet answered why this matters to you at all.

As a player, generally speaking its not your business how other people are running their builds.

Should anyone be DMing then it is up to them to determine what sort of world is to be played, what well... everything you as the DM want to deal with. Its perfectly reasonable for a DM to say: single class, core only, play strongly archetypal character. That's as valid as allowing anything and everything. Are you suggesting every game should allow whatever anyone in it wants? I'm guessing not.

Now I'd say most of us on the less multi-classing side are more interested in a sense of ideal aesthetics. How if we could (in theory) get everything we wanted things would go. I certainly don't think even nessecarily most games would be played to my own subjective standards, but that doesn't change why I dislike certain (and in fact a lot of) things in D&D.


A 'sane game'? Really? That character concept was insanely weak mechanically, though fun to play. Why do you think its insane? It would be slaughtered by anyone who was a modicum more focused.

Perhaps instead of sane I would substitute reasonable. Though that's if anything an even worse weasel word. But going at a concept that could actually be played without being horribly underpowered next to a more simply/traditionally/normally/however built character.

I ultimately find the thing less a character then an collection of mechanics. I went on about forms of magic because D&D does not have a good general definition of it. Are psionics magic or not magic, whats the meaningful difference between arcane and divine magic. There isn't an actual general answer on this to my knowledge, largely because of how everything came out across many years. Now there's good reason for there not to be an answer since it leaves every setting free to make one up without worrying about a 'canonical' answer.

Back though to characters as collections of mechanics. Is such a character fun for you because it has a wide range of tricks to meet any situation, or because it has a lot of different ways to do those many tricks? I won't speak conclusively on all methods (I don't own ToM for example) but most of D&D's effects have to overlap and repeat themselves. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to play the material in half as many combination.

For a more specific example if you deal damage it can come from uncounted sources and what type can determine what defenses counter it... but its still HP subtracted to the total. Probably the simplest example I can give but at any rate ultimately everything share the same group of stats that everything you do affects. Or at least most of them. Yes I'm sure there's something I'm missing, like how there's not a psionic power to drain sorcerer spell slots or something. In a game this complex I won't pretend to cover every possible thing. For any particular situation I'd adapt to my underlying principle. Common sense and all

After you've reached being able to effect every stat how much do the differences matter. And yes this goes for a lot of what I've said, but this is all our subjective tastes and judgements on where what applies and how. And why I really really try not take this thread very seriously.



And no, as far as I'm aware no multiclass Divine/Arcanist can mimic the inifinite uses of Pact magic or Invocations, nor can they really give you access to certain psionic abilities or Truenamer abilities. And If I can only have a single PrC I'm stuck at 8/8 or 7/9 Casting and few enough spells per day at higher levels I couldn't reasonably mimic anything.

I don't own Tome of Magic so I have to ask what do you specifically want to do? Is drain a stat, do damage, buff, y'know whatever? Or is this a specific flavor thing like summon the spirit manifestation of a creature who's ghostly image to roar his terrifying defiance. As we all seem to agree this is omni-caster is underpowered so presumably there were things he can't do.


Thats besides the point however, I was giving an example of a character I made in a game I actually played. I have a ton of characters that can not be forced into three total classes and be at all effective, he was just the most convenient to illustrate my point.

Convenient because he obviously breaks three classes in a way not easy to compress? Understand I care less about fitting every concept under that rule of three then about said. Because I find more then that hopelessly broad in basis. You want to play it, well I wouldn't allow it if I was running the game.

It doesn't resemble a character to me, its an example of ways this game doesn't make sense. Like a 1d2 doing 'infinite' damage, other cheese, or applying templates to make you be three half-somethings. What story would I find this character in? I wouldn't, either the difference in magic would be minimalized for that world, the character's breadth would be, and most likely both.

At this point there's been a reasonably common response of think more generally. Well I quite simply don't want to do that, because its asking me to change my own personal tastes. I'm not a prick I understand the offer, but I don't care (at all) to change my tastes or rewire how I think about all D&D (because everything reflects on everything else) to philosophically 'allow' something I don't like but accept as existing under different viewpoints anyways. I still dislike it.


Seriously, a Wizard/Cleric/PrC doesn't fit the concept I laid out and cannot do the things I envisioned the character as able to do. Its a poor substitute, though markedly more powerful.

The concept for this that combo is "magic generalist" able to do a wide range of effects. Fly, yes. Raise the dead, yes. Make you sick, yes. Make you well, yes. Call an otherworldly creature, yes. Increase stats, yes. Read your mind, yes.

Its an oddly mechanics based solution for me. The practical endpoint, then waved under the notion of magic being magic. The biggest point of contention would maybe not being able to have certain effects be as permanent as they'd be from elsewhere, but ultimately it is good to have some trade-offs. Without know very specifically what you want its the broadest that occurred to me off hand.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-15, 10:37 PM
As a player, generally speaking its not your business how other people are running their builds.
Agreed.


Should anyone be DMing then it is up to them to determine what sort of world is to be played, what well... everything you as the DM want to deal with. Its perfectly reasonable for a DM to say: single class, core only, play strongly archetypal character. That's as valid as allowing anything and everything. Are you suggesting every game should allow whatever anyone in it wants? I'm guessing not.
No, I'm not, but I also don't feel that the DM should decide "Eh, I don't like this, so you can't do it." Especially with respect to character creation. If any of those classes, or any particular combination, is overpowered, that's one thing. If any class simply doesn't fit in the fluff of the gameworld, that's also fine. If the DM just doesn't have the requisite knowledge to run a game with a certain mechanic being involved, that's just how it is and no one would complain. But to say, arbitrarily, that you cannot have more than X classes, just because it doesn't look pretty to the DM? That really bothers me. It strikes me as a DM who feels he has way more say than I believe he does. It strikes me as a DM who is overly restrictive and basically, not particularly fun to game with. I would not play with that DM.


Now I'd say most of us on the less multi-classing side are more interested in a sense of ideal aesthetics.
I don't fully understand what you mean, but my main response to this is why do you feel the need to impose your aesthetics on my character, even if you are DMing for me?

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-15, 11:36 PM
I don't fully understand what you mean, but my main response to this is why do you feel the need to impose your aesthetics on my character, even if you are DMing for me?

Speaking personally its because nothing about the character would fit for the setting I'd create.

People are just not that multi-talented and training is not so vague as to allow you to pick and choose easily. While maintaining your skills puts limits on how much you can pick up too. For that matter the vast majority of material doesn't exist unless a PC plays it. That's as important a part of the flavor of the setting as that there's say four kingdoms, a costal republic, and a distant empire. Or whether its low or high magic.

And ultimately because if I'm running the show, I'm running the show.

I simply can't find it in me to sacrifice my sense of aesthetics for yours, when yours has to operate in my broader setting. And if I make the broader rule of "keep characters simple" then I'm applying an equal standard to a lot of arguments. Nothing stops all potential headaches but if I keep a lid on the potential its fewer specific counters I may need.

Now if everyone in the group is demanding to play a bunch dip-happy complex builds its one thing, but I'd probably not run that show if that was the case.

Saurus33
2010-06-15, 11:49 PM
Sure, no-one is that multi-talented. Nor is anyone that talented at all, ever. Just from skills, you have a rogue 20 who is more than twice as knowledgeable in history, archaeology, diplomacy, medicine and a couple of other fields as any PhD has ever been. Once you get to 20 or so, you are godlike. The common person is wheat before the scythe to you. Why not, instead of ridiculous hypercompetency, ridiculous multicompetency?

Math_Mage
2010-06-16, 12:07 AM
Tell me how to fulfill this concept in three classes or a single prestige class

A mage who studies every form of magic including truenaming, arcane, divine, pact, shadowcasting, psionic and invoking.

This is a concept that is very deliberately structured to involve many different types of gameplay, and thus many different classes. I don't see why you should expect WotC to cater to your desire to represent such a mishmash with any single class, or three classes, or anything but a mishmash.

If you don't restrict yourself to 'must have casting of every type as an inherent class feature', though, a Factotum with heavy focus on UMD, UPD, crafting feats and Knowledge skills can be pretty much this. I don't know how viable such a build would be, but like I said, it should take a mishmash build to represent such a mishmash concept viably in any case.


or

A man with a large managerie of creatures mundane and magical who has taught himself to fight in their style.

Druid 20 can do this guy one better. I'd be interested in how you handled it, of course. Again, your build concept seems deliberately designed to be dip-happy (if you consider modeling after a single animal instead of a whole menagerie, for example, I'm sure there are 1 base class + 1 PRC progressions that handle that adequately, and this is more like what actually happens vis-a-vis combat styles--consider Monkey, Tiger, Snake, Praying Mantis, Crane etc.).

All in all, I'm not sure how you extrapolate from these extreme corner cases to say anything good or bad about D&D's class system in general, particularly when you seem to want to avoid sacrificing power in a universe where specialization >>> generalization. (This is usually the case in real life, too.) Or is that all you really wanted to say? That the jack of all trades should be able to compete with the master of one?

Zore
2010-06-16, 12:17 AM
My point was that some concepts, some I have played, are unable to be represented by three classes. I personally love the modular nature of the D&D class system and love making characters who have more than a single class. I often create characters that do not fit into one or even three class' archetypes and feel the need to branch out. D&D 3.5 is a great system because it allows for that kind of modularity. I find it is one of the system's greatest strengths.

Math_Mage
2010-06-16, 12:21 AM
My point was that some concepts, some I have played, are unable to be represented by three classes. I personally love the modular nature of the D&D class system and love making characters who have more than a single class. I often create characters that do not fit into one or even three class' archetypes and feel the need to branch out. D&D 3.5 is a great system because it allows for that kind of modularity. I find it is one of the system's greatest strengths.

Okay, I misunderstood your position. I apologize.

It's likely there are systems that can represent your concepts in one 'module' because their systems are constructed differently from D&D. It's also likely there systems run into the same 'jack of all trades' problem I mentioned above. I'm not sure how to determine that D&D's modularity is better or worse than those systems' setups.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-16, 12:43 AM
Once you get to 20 6or so, you are godlike. The common person is wheat before the scythe to you.
Seriously, anyone still bounded by the physical limitations of the human body by level 6 is playing an NPC.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-16, 02:02 AM
If you need more then three classes or more then one PrC to realize your archetypal concept, then I think your concept is overly mechanical in nature.

A Rogue (Rogue-2) who doesn't wear armor (Swordsage-2, Battle Dancer-2 or Monk-2) and is really good at using thrown weapons (Fighter-2, Master Thrower-5). Now, if I'm playing a game that enforces Multiclassing Penalties and playing, say, an Elf (because the party is supposed to be a group of Elves)... then I only have a couple of choices. I can go Wizard (doesn't fit the concept at all); I can slowly advance my three base classes for the next 9 levels (ending up Rogue-5, Fighter-5, SS/BD/Monk-5, Master Thrower-5... giving me 4 "dead" levels.); or I can find another PrC/Class that thematically fits the character... like Exemplar, or Thief Acrobat.

Heck, the best option might even be to take Warblade-2 and then go into Bloodstorm Blade.

Math_Mage
2010-06-16, 02:46 AM
I think they would be weaker. They would have to give up a degree of mastery in order to learn how to meld the two disciplines. This means that they should be advancing each discipline to a lesser degree than someone who focused only on that discipline.

But that's my interpretation of the concept. Yours may differ. But if I'm going to make the class, I'd want there to be a non-mechanical reason for MT that is distinct from AH.

Surely someone interested in melding the disciplines of arcane and divine magic would want to start melding them as soon as possible (i.e. start taking Arcane Hierophant as soon as possible). Once you run out of Arcane Hierophant levels, what do you do? You can spend time and energy to make 4 more AH levels, IF your DM allows homebrew. Or, you can notice that there's another dual-progression class available in the book called Mystic Theurge, and refluff to suit. Do you want to punish the player because the publishers made the prestige class 10 levels instead of 14? Do you want to force the player to go through the work of extending the AH class and getting the result approved by the DM for the sake of respecting publisher fluff?

It seems to me like you're imposing a roleplaying restriction on a character (i.e. find a reason why your character would go from AH to MT), or a significant expenditure of effort on the player, because of a mechanical restriction in the books (AH is 4 levels too short). How is this respecting the player's character concept over game mechanics?

Soras Teva Gee
2010-06-16, 09:41 AM
Why not, instead of ridiculous hypercompetency, ridiculous multicompetency?

Well skill monkey's already are the latter and the former, but that's besides the point.

I would say the former is much more common as a concept and doesn't impinge of suspension of disbelief since its a more common acceptable break from reality. Also consider say level 10 is watching a lvl 17 and a lvl 20 fight, do they percieve a difference in skill? Probably not though a lvl 16 might instead. This doesn't work with a lot of mechanics but its sorta how I think about it. That hyper-competency only matters against in as hyper-competent situations.

The latter though is much much more obvious and for that matter meaningful.


A Rogue (Rogue-2) who doesn't wear armor (Swordsage-2, Battle Dancer-2 or Monk-2) and is really good at using thrown weapons (Fighter-2, Master Thrower-5). Now, if I'm playing a game that enforces Multiclassing Penalties and playing, say, an Elf (because the party is supposed to be a group of Elves)... then I only have a couple of choices. I can go Wizard (doesn't fit the concept at all); I can slowly advance my three base classes for the next 9 levels (ending up Rogue-5, Fighter-5, SS/BD/Monk-5, Master Thrower-5... giving me 4 "dead" levels.); or I can find another PrC/Class that thematically fits the character... like Exemplar, or Thief Acrobat.

Heck, the best option might even be to take Warblade-2 and then go into Bloodstorm Blade.

Quoting me so I'll respond. I'm sorry but you want "Rogue that doesn't wear armor and throws stuff" and you need all that. :smallconfused:

No you don't. That's not even a multiclass its a play choice and some feats to realize. You've still got the basic just by picking your equipment.

The rest is just trying to make it higher performance. Which maybe not optimized but that's not what this is about and does not constitute a need.


Surely someone interested in melding the disciplines of arcane and divine magic would want to start melding them as soon as possible (i.e. start taking Arcane Hierophant as soon as possible). Once you run out of Arcane Hierophant levels, what do you do? You can spend time and energy to make 4 more AH levels, IF your DM allows homebrew. Or, you can notice that there's another dual-progression class available in the book called Mystic Theurge, and refluff to suit. Do you want to punish the player because the publishers made the prestige class 10 levels instead of 14? Do you want to force the player to go through the work of extending the AH class and getting the result approved by the DM for the sake of respecting publisher fluff?

It seems to me like you're imposing a roleplaying restriction on a character (i.e. find a reason why your character would go from AH to MT), or a significant expenditure of effort on the player, because of a mechanical restriction in the books (AH is 4 levels too short). How is this respecting the player's character concept over game mechanics?

So when you run out of PrC levels you don't just take levels in the base classes to fill the rest in because.... its not optimized?

To me that seems to be the only reason here. You've already fulfilled the concept of an arcane/divine caster. Any limitation on advance is a valid restriction for spreading yourself out versus single level specialization. Flavor wise you could have waited until 10th level before picking up the PrC, as performance is not the issue.

If didn't and you want to specialize a bit after then only take one of the underlying classes. Then you're just tilting one way over the other. Or take an even split. Heck if your not mostly done with the campaign its going epic anyways, at which point I personally no longer care what characters do build wise.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-06-16, 10:36 AM
A Rogue (Rogue-2) who doesn't wear armor (Swordsage-2, Battle Dancer-2 or Monk-2) and is really good at using thrown weapons (Fighter-2, Master Thrower-5).

"Rogue" is personality, and "doesn't wear armor" can be emulated by the Carmendine Monk feat (using the liberal interpretation that +2 monk level can turn "none" into "two" for the AC bonus). The only build point that needs to be hit is the "thrown weapons" part, which doesn't necessarily need too many classes.

On the other hand, the "good at" part of "good at using thrown weapons" may require more classes, but feat choices or ability rolls could fill that need as well.

Flavor wise you could have waited until 10th level before picking up the PrC, as performance is not the issue.
Flavor wise, people envision a certain level of competency, which ties into performance. Their visions may be unrealistic, but flavor and performance are connected nonetheless.

lsfreak
2010-06-16, 01:05 PM
Flavor wise you could have waited until 10th level before picking up the PrC, as performance is not the issue.

What if I dislike the flavor of incompetency? There's a concept, and there's doing a concept well. Pulling off a concept means nothing if you suck at it and drag the group down.

Gametime
2010-06-16, 01:13 PM
So when you run out of PrC levels you don't just take levels in the base classes to fill the rest in because.... its not optimized?

To me that seems to be the only reason here. You've already fulfilled the concept of an arcane/divine caster. Any limitation on advance is a valid restriction for spreading yourself out versus single level specialization. Flavor wise you could have waited until 10th level before picking up the PrC, as performance is not the issue.


Once a player dedicates their character to becoming a theurge, only gaining abilities from one class at a time is really just not fun. Power level aside, it's just not very enjoyable to only level up one half at a time.

Power level considered, it's fairly crippling to be five levels behind where you should be at the end of the game, and not at all overpowered to allow access to four more levels of theurge-ing. There is a vast difference between "optimal" and "competent"; demanding to be the former may not be acceptable, but surely requesting to be the latter is.

I am not, however, sure why people think extending Arcane Hierophant is difficult, considering that it's only class features past 1st level are limited use abilities that gain more uses on an obvious pattern. Channel Animal goes to 6/day at 12th level, Channel Plants goes to 3/day at 14th, and you get an extra level of arcane and divine spellcasting at each level. Done. (Much more pressing is the fact that the BAB restriction means you can't actually enter until you're 7th level, even with fractional progression. Ugh.)

DragoonWraith
2010-06-16, 01:19 PM
Much more pressing is the fact that the BAB restriction means you can't actually enter until you're 7th level, even with fractional progression. Ugh.
Hence Druid 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1/Arcane Hierophant 10/Mystic Theurge 3.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-17, 04:10 AM
Without multiclassing, dipping and PrCs, a melee/ranged weapon character can't even keep up with classes like Duskblade, Beguiler or Warmage (even ignoring Tier-1 classes).

Tytalus
2010-06-17, 06:11 AM
Hence Druid 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 1/Arcane Hierophant 10/Mystic Theurge 3.

Doesn't work by standard rules due to the BAB requirement of AH.

Druid 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 2/Arcane Hierophant 10/Mystic Theurge 2 would, though.

Pluto
2010-06-17, 11:56 AM
Doesn't work by standard rules due to the BAB requirement of AH.
There are groups that don't advance BA/saves fractionally? :smalleek:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-17, 12:07 PM
There are groups that don't advance BA/saves fractionally? :smalleek:
Since it's labeled as a "house rule" in Unearthed Arcana, it doesn't even rate status as an approved variant.

So, yeah, lots of groups don't use fractional BAB & saves. But then, you knew that. :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2010-06-17, 12:13 PM
Since it's labeled as a "house rule" in Unearthed Arcana, it doesn't even rate status as an approved variant.

So, yeah, lots of groups don't use fractional BAB & saves. But then, you knew that. :smalltongue:

I eyeballed it years before UA. I guess I'm not alone. (Not to say that is a proof, but I think that you can manage it even without UA or SRD).

Merk
2010-06-17, 12:20 PM
I think to a degree multiclassing is just a necessary feature of the game when you're playing classes that don't have a scaled power source or fun innate class features (blade magic, psionics, spells, etc.) Playing a Warblade or Beguiler is both viable and fun from 1-20, but I'd probably never want to play a straight Fighter 20 or something similar.