Awkward build is awkward.

[Gharkash]

So, i am somewhat new to 3.5, its rules and guidebooks, but i tend to see in many optimization builds for characters four, five, or more classes, that many times sound pretty incoherent, and really awkward if you take a moment and think about how they can be roleplayed. Builds with paladin, wizard, some weird divine prc from a long lost tome of unspeakable content and swordsage levels just dont seem right to me. Any opinions?

[Curious]

So, i am somewhat new to 3.5, its rules and guidebooks, but i tend to see in many optimization builds for characters four, five, or more classes, that many times sound pretty incoherent, and really awkward if you take a moment and think about how they can be roleplayed. Builds with paladin, wizard, some weird divine prc from a long lost tome of unspeakable content and swordsage levels just dont seem right to me. Any opinions?

Classes =/= jobs. They are bundles of skills, nothing more. A Paladin/Sorceror/Spellsword/Abjurant Champion is a righteous warrior who lays waste to his enemies with his inborn magical talent. It's an incredibly simple and easy concept, and requires heavy multiclassing to be viable.

[gbprime]

Playing mix and match with classes and prc's is just fine as long as you're sticking to a tight concept. But there's an elegance to it that's hard to define. Dipping fighter levels just for the feats or rogue just for evasion is kinda cheesy, yes. But certain concepts DO require a lot of swapping around to work well.


the aforementioned paladin sorcerer.
a dwarven runesmith
anything using prestige bard
anything blending monk and spellcaster
the popular swahbuckler rogue


Et ceteram.

[FMArthur]

Your character isn't its class. That's the long and short of it. The character itself does not know how many 'levels' it has, or anything about its levels. They just know about their diverse background or varied interests or multiple sources of training/instruction. None of those are at all unusual for fantasy characters. When you're roleplaying a fighter/barbarian/swordsage, the abilities you have are just the character's talents. The guy was skilled with weapons as a plain warrior, went to train under a martial arts master to learn proper technique, and and holds a ferocious temper in check.

[Big Fau]

A character is what you play, not what you use to play it. Class builds character.

[sonofzeal]

Let's take an example character for a moment:

Survivalist.Fighter2/Lunar.Ranger2/Wolf.Totem.Barbarian1/Wilderness.Rogue4

Ninth level character with levels in four different classes, each with variants applied to them? The horror! But look at the character's actual abilites. Is there anything this character does, in practice, that doesn't make sense for that sort of wilderness warrior? They're a sort of battle-ranger - fast, agile, good in the woods, hit hard, fairly tough, all around a mean customer.

But there's not really much more powerful than a good single-classed character. They're just a more nuanced mix, going for a particular subtle archetype that's somewhere between the various classes listed.

[Incriptus]

Gharkash, dont let them get you down, often times you are right.

There is a time and place for multiclassing, often it can flow into a seemless whole for your character, other classes are much more difficult to justify, expecially if you build as you go, or change your mind about something.

Some classes are more thematically open to multiclassing or dipping, other's not so much. There are lots of guys that tell you to dip into Cloistered Cleric . . . can anyone explain how they justify that one to a GM. Lion Totem Barbarian is popular, yeah you suddenly developed that one, for your rogue who had never left a city [hey I want pounce too].

I'm also a big fan of those people who multiclass with classes with opposed alignment restrictions. Yeah I was a Lawful Monk, but since I wasn't going to advance in that class I decided that I was a Chaotic Barbarian, now that I don't need the barbarian levels I'll flip back to being Lawful to take some Paladin levels.

Some classes are easy to justify. I worked on my Fighting Skills, so I took an extra level in fighter. I'm even willing to justify spontanous awakening of your dragon blood [sorc] or latent psionic abilities [Psionics].

Regarless, it depends on the game your playing. If you have blueprinted your build from day one it's fairly easy to come up with a back story that justifies what you are doing. If your playing by the seat of your pants, it can be much harder. Also of note you are a player character, that makes you special so sometimes even inexplicable changes are justified/accepted.

[Gharkash]

All the above builds mentioned are legit, but that is, as some one said before, because they stick on a concept. I do not have a problem with concepts, even if they are weird, its the player's choice, i refer to choises that are profound powerplay and do not have any meaning or sane justification. Being an agile wilderness warrior with 4 different classes and alternate rules is ok, but a wizard that turned psionic (especially if there's nothing about that on the background of the character) or a monk going two levels fighter because he wanted feats, that's what i am talking about. Genrally going on a class for nothing more but the feautures with no justification, that is what bothers me.

[Binks]

Let's justify your two examples then :smallsmile:

Wizard -> Psionic (which is, firstly, almost certainly going to be a drop in power rather than a gain, but that's just nitpicking). The arcane master who unlocked his powers in a time of need? Can you say, Xmen?

Monk -> Fighter (also a terrible choice...if these are things your players are actually doing they are not powerplaying in any way I understand it, as they can't ever go back to monk now) is the aesthetic monk raised to use certain pieces of their training who becomes more pragmatic and accepting of a more 'brute-forced' approach, or finds they enjoy fighting and starts to dedicate themselves more towards combat than their old ideals, or any one of a hundred other possibilities.

Any combination can be justified. It's certainly possible there are people just dipping for power, but most of the time in an actually game they're dipping for some reason that explains, thematically, what they're doing in-character. The monk dipping for feats? He's developing general combat abilities to the detriment of his monk-specific abilities. That's a perfectly reasonable archetype for a character, and, even if the player can't express it, that's what's going on IC.

The wizard grabbing psionic powers is harder to understand, but that's because it's hard to understand why someone playing a wizard would want to dip psionic. If you ask them and they say, for instance, that there was a cool psionic power they wanted, then maybe their character has just discovered he has psionic potential and is choosing to develop that instead of his old arcane powers.

TL:DR - Yeah, sometimes people dip just for power. More often they dip for concept, and any dip for concept can be justified. Find out why (OOC) a player is dipping, and you have a pretty good explanation of why (IC) the character is changing if you just think about it for a bit.

[sonofzeal]

Gharkash, dont let them get you down, often times you are right.

There is a time and place for multiclassing, often it can flow into a seemless whole for your character, other classes are much more difficult to justify, expecially if you build as you go, or change your mind about something.

Some classes are more thematically open to multiclassing or dipping, other's not so much. There are lots of guys that tell you to dip into Cloistered Cleric . . . can anyone explain how they justify that one to a GM. Lion Totem Barbarian is popular, yeah you suddenly developed that one, for your rogue who had never left a city [hey I want pounce too].

I'm also a big fan of those people who multiclass with classes with opposed alignment restrictions. Yeah I was a Lawful Monk, but since I wasn't going to advance in that class I decided that I was a Chaotic Barbarian, now that I don't need the barbarian levels I'll flip back to being Lawful to take some Paladin levels.

Some classes are easy to justify. I worked on my Fighting Skills, so I took an extra level in fighter. I'm even willing to justify spontanous awakening of your dragon blood [sorc] or latent psionic abilities [Psionics].

Regarless, it depends on the game your playing. If you have blueprinted your build from day one it's fairly easy to come up with a back story that justifies what you are doing. If your playing by the seat of your pants, it can be much harder. Also of note you are a player character, that makes you special so sometimes even inexplicable changes are justified/accepted.
Alignment switching is one thing, but I have to disagree with the rest.

Rogue takes Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian - what's the problem? All he actually did was learn how to fight a bit better. Extra hp, gets angry for a combat boost, can attack more than once when he charges... nothing out of character for a tough street punk. A RogueX/Barbarian1 is slightly tougher and meaner than a pure Rogue, but slightly less skillful. More power-oriented than finesse-oriented. And there's room for that. Why wouldn't there be?

[Urpriest]

Fighter is essentially always justified, since it's just a generic combat training class.

Could you give us an example of an actual build that you think is an example of this?

[Gharkash]

The wizard/psion and the monk/fighter were examples of the top of my head, not actual multiclasses that i found somewhere, they were just examples to make a point. As for such builds that i have found weird, i am searching. The one i found with a quick search is a psionic monk build, with monk2/psionic warrior16/warshaper2. I can't see how he actually gets the prc, maybe by a race, i don't know if the adapt body psionic power can count as a prerequisite. Yes, this can be explained or roleplayed, but to me it just does not fit with the previous theme.

[Urpriest]

The wizard/psion and the monk/fighter were examples of the top of my head, not actual multiclasses that i found somewhere, they were just examples to make a point. As for such builds that i have found weird, i am searching. The one i found with a quick search is a psionic monk build, with monk2/psionic warrior16/warshaper2. I can't see how he actually gets the prc, maybe by a race, i don't know if the adapt body psionic power can count as a prerequisite. Yes, this can be explained or roleplayed, but to me it just does not fit with the previous theme.

That build only works if Metamorphosis is treated as Polymorph for qualification. In that case, Warshaper's fluff is perfectly aligned with Psychic Warrior: Warshaper is a PrC for casters (and shapechanging monsters) who engage in melee with various natural weapons, which is precisely what a Psychic Warrior is. Monk and Psychic Warrior are both people who use their mental equilibrium and discipline to enhance their combat abilities, if you fluff psionics that way (and with psychic warriors being Wis-based, that's the best way to fluff their psionics). Not only is there nothing fluff incoherent about that build, it doesn't even appear to be fluff incoherent to a casual observer.

[Shades of Gray]

A monk who seeks ultimate physical perfection at all costs. He develops psychic powers, increasing his physical prowess to its limits, before finally deciding that if his human form is insufficient, then using his powers to alter it will be the final step in achieving a perfect body.

[Dusk Eclipse]

That is most likely a Tashalastoran King of Smack, a character that through meditation and self control has managed to tame and control the beasts that lurks inside all men.

Edit: See two quite different interpretations of the same character and yet they are perfectly coherent

[Gharkash]

In psionics handbook, metamorphosis is a lvl 5 power gained only by psions, i dont know if there is an alternate of the spell somewhere, but i dont think the psychic warrior can use that power.

[sonofzeal]

The wizard/psion and the monk/fighter were examples of the top of my head, not actual multiclasses that i found somewhere, they were just examples to make a point. As for such builds that i have found weird, i am searching. The one i found with a quick search is a psionic monk build, with monk2/psionic warrior16/warshaper2. I can't see how he actually gets the prc, maybe by a race, i don't know if the adapt body psionic power can count as a prerequisite. Yes, this can be explained or roleplayed, but to me it just does not fit with the previous theme.
What's wrong with that?

Monk is practically psionic already. Their power comes from internal focus and meditation. I mean, 3.5 nods to this with "Tashalatora", a feat specifically intended to help blend Monks with Psi, and 4e makes Monks officially Psi-powered.

Multiclassing Monk with Psychic Warrior is entirely natural, especially with that feat. I've done it, and the result was very Monk-ish. He was unarmed and unarmored, but hit hard, was hard to hit, was fast and mobile, had supernatural senses, had some limited teleportation, etc. It was everything you'd expect a Monk to be, but more functional. And, as my character levelled, he eventually got a few outright supernatural abilities - first Expansion to grow, and then Metamorphosis (via a feat) to expand on that into outright shapechanging. That wasn't particularly Monk-ish, I'll admit, but it also made a lot of sense within the campaign setting that involve mysterious shapechanging creatures that said my character was kinda-sorta-not-quite-but-almost one of them. It worked. And I could easily have taken Warshaper if I'd wanted to.


In psionics handbook, metamorphosis is a lvl 5 power gained only by psions, i dont know if there is an alternate of the spell somewhere, but i dont think the psychic warrior can use that power.
It can be gained through Expanded Knowledge, or through Mantled Warrior.

[Urpriest]

In psionics handbook, metamorphosis is a lvl 5 power gained only by psions, i dont know if there is an alternate of the spell somewhere, but i dont think the psychic warrior can use that power.

If you didn't think the build worked you could have asked in the thread where you found it. Posting here means you accept that the build works and still have fluff reservations about it, as befits the thread topic you yourself created.

[Godskook]

So, i am somewhat new to 3.5, its rules and guidebooks, but i tend to see in many optimization builds for characters four, five, or more classes, that many times sound pretty incoherent, and really awkward if you take a moment and think about how they can be roleplayed. Builds with paladin, wizard, some weird divine prc from a long lost tome of unspeakable content and swordsage levels just dont seem right to me. Any opinions?

Actually, most of the time, the optimizers put sorcerer in there, not wizard.

And here's how it might appear in a story:

The son of a legendary paladin is trained to follow in his father's footsteps(Paladin 2), and does for a while. While serving within his father's order, his latent arcane power manifests(Sorc 4). After some time developing his arcane power, he begins studying how to weave his arcane training and warrior training together(Spellsword 1). Soon thereafter, he discovers powerful arcane secrets that allow him to weave his skills together quite well(Abjurant Champion). Finally, having proved his arcane arts invaluable to the order, he is trained as an Exorcist, granted a measure of independence(Sacred Exorcist).

In the end, he's:

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 8

His younger brother follows almost directly in his footsteps until one mission, where the younger brother is assigned to aid the famous Reshar. During that time, Reshar gives teachings into steadying the young boy's mind(Diamond Mind), which was more torn by the split requirements of arcane and paladin training than his elder brother.

In the end, he's

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 6/Swordsage 2

Both legal builds, both with suitable stories, and the first is the gold-standard in Sorcerer gishes.

[sonofzeal]

Actually, most of the time, the optimizers put sorcerer in there, not wizard.

And here's how it might appear in a story:

The son of a legendary paladin is trained to follow in his father's footsteps(Paladin 2), and does for a while. While serving within his father's order, his latent arcane power manifests(Sorc 4). After some time developing his arcane power, he begins studying how to weave his arcane training and warrior training together(Spellsword 1). Soon thereafter, he discovers powerful arcane secrets that allow him to weave his skills together quite well(Abjurant Champion). Finally, having proved his arcane arts invaluable to the order, he is trained as an Exorcist, granted a measure of independence(Sacred Exorcist).

In the end, he's:

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 8

His younger brother follows almost directly in his footsteps until one mission, where the younger brother is assigned to aid the famous Reshar. During that time, Reshar gives teachings into steadying the young boy's mind(Diamond Mind), which was more torn by the split requirements of arcane and paladin training than his elder brother.

In the end, he's

Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Sacred Exorcist 6/Swordsage 2

Both legal builds, both with suitable stories, and the first is the gold-standard in Sorcerer gishes.
Good story!



I tend to look more at the result as a whole, rather than the pieces as a progression. When a new character comes in, what they can do is what they can do. If it's a 10th level game and someone brings in a Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellsword1/Abjurant.Champion3 - well, that's a character who's tough, especially against magic (high saves), has good arcane power, and can fight. So... basically a mage-warrior, which is probably exactly what the player was going for when they made it. I don't try to incorporate every single level separately into the backstory, I look at the result and say what I see.

[Leon]

Any class can make a good character, be it single classes or multi. What matters is how its played.

If you have to go through 5 different classes to make your character idea work then you have to - but it may also work just as well with a single class.

I have a Cleric that has 2 barbarian levels and is preparing to start taking the Lich template - yes it adversely affects my spell casting but that's not stopping me from making the Character a interesting one. He has been though a lot in the campaign thus far and is now under the sway of a evil book and repeated close contact with assorted Demi & Arch Lichs has made things look quite different than what he was like at the beginning

[JackRackham]

The OP has a point insofar as players sometimes don't roleplay their characters, but multiclassing isn't to blame. Those sane guys often enough don't roleplay a simple, single-classed character either. Case-in-point: I had a PC in one of my campaigns who played a CG cleric of correlan larethian. He kept complaining OOC that the Paladin in the group wouldn't let him kill random NPCs and commit other acts of evil. Then, he starts bartering with every NPC that asks for help in-character in a 'what's in it for me' tone. I explained to him dozens of times that he would lose his cleric powers anyway if he went evil, but he just didn't get it. He was always threatening to go Annakin on the party (a barbarian/bear warrior and a pretty complicated lockdown build with some paladin for flavor), not understanding that as soon as he attempted it, be'd be a worthless sack of 3/4 BAB with no useful melee feats.

EDIT: Meanwhile, another player was a rogueX/paladinX/fighterX/(ihomebrewed PrC)X who later retrained to a CrusaderX/RogueX/WarbladeX (with a period of IC rededication in preparation for an assault on the BBEG) who authored a complicated backstory to account for it and ended up roleplaying the sh*t out of the end result - an avenging crusader for LG values who hates dragons and wizards, but is mortally terrified of raptors.

Really, a bad roleplayer is a bad roleplayer regardless of class and a good roleplayer can find a way to roleplay whatever concept they care to play (and will likely restrict their concept to something they see as playable). Bottom line: multiclassing, even the 'awkward' variety, is not the culprit.

[Arbane]

So, i am somewhat new to 3.5, its rules and guidebooks, but i tend to see in many optimization builds for characters four, five, or more classes, that many times sound pretty incoherent, and really awkward if you take a moment and think about how they can be roleplayed.


It _is_ awkward. The problem is that a lot of classes are one-trick-ponies, so this is an attempt to either broaden their range a bit, or to get several extra abilities that can combine to be _way_ better than the sum of their parts.


Builds with paladin, wizard, some weird divine prc from a long lost tome of unspeakable content and swordsage levels just dont seem right to me. Any opinions?

Now I want to see a splatbook called the Tome of Unspeakable Content. I imagine it would have the Pun-Pun Prestige class, among other things. :smallbiggrin:

[DoctorGlock]

Frankly, a build only defines capabilities, fluff is entirely different and reflavoring anything should be done on a regular basis anyway. Havin to justify evey feat through roleplay gets utterly ridiculous if you are completely wed to the default fluff

Monk/Ardent tash? An aesthetic powered by force of will

Sorcerer/Paladin/stuff? One who fights with sword and sorcery, powered by righteous zeal

each of those is "what he can do", not "who he is", the second makes a character and does not touch the mechanics at all.

[DonutBoy12321]

All of these are logical. I think what the OP is referring to is builds like the Dragonwrought Kobold (Druid casting archetype from FR sourcebook someewhere) Dread Necro 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Prestige Paladin (LN variant from Dragon) 4/Spellsword 1/Fatespinner 4 to get spontaneous casting from Druid, Cleric, and Wizard lists. No logic backstory-wise.

[Coidzor]

There are lots of guys that tell you to dip into Cloistered Cleric . . . can anyone explain how they justify that one to a GM.

It's the rare character who cannot find religion, and not all who do neglect their minds or studies. There's a concept that pretty much encapsulates most Paladins and Clerics in D&D, that of the call, and considering that's a personal, metaphysical experience, that's easy to work into just about any character.


Lion Totem Barbarian is popular, yeah you suddenly developed that one, for your rogue who had never left a city [hey I want pounce too].

Ah, see, now you're just getting hung up on something that isn't actually part of the Barbarian class.

[Incanur]

All he actually did was learn how to fight a bit better. Extra hp, gets angry for a combat boost, can attack more than once when he charges... nothing out of character for a tough street punk. A RogueX/Barbarian1 is slightly tougher and meaner than a pure Rogue, but slightly less skillful.

No, the character question learned to fight a lot better. :smallamused: It's ridiculous how much the barbarian dip benefits almost any martial character. For serious, pounce and whirling frenzy amount to pure win - particularly at the lower levels.

[sonofzeal]

No, the character question learned to fight a lot better. :smallamused: It's ridiculous how much the barbarian dip benefits almost any martial character. For serious, pounce and whirling frenzy amount to pure win - particularly at the lower levels.
Agreed it's a bit too good a dip if you do it that. Personally, I simply do not ever use Complete Champion for a variety of reasons, and I don't take Whirling Frenzy unless I'm actually going Barbarian. That brings it down within reason.


All of these are logical. I think what the OP is referring to is builds like the Dragonwrought Kobold (Druid casting archetype from FR sourcebook someewhere) Dread Necro 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Prestige Paladin (LN variant from Dragon) 4/Spellsword 1/Fatespinner 4 to get spontaneous casting from Druid, Cleric, and Wizard lists. No logic backstory-wise.
Easy - he's a Kobold Ancestor (or alternatively a Spell-Dragon, or a Couatlwrought since they get divine and arcane too), a being tied directly in to the fabric of magic, and as such his magic transcends all normal bounds. Each step along that way was simply part of his awakening.

[shadow_archmagi]

I don't see the problem with that unless you're metagaming. The idea that Wizards are significantly and uniquely different from Clerics a metagame one. If you were actually roleplaying it, he'd just be a wizard who could throw out a *lot* of big spells.

Likewise, there's no reason for there to be some huge impossible fluff chasm between a character that throws fire with his mind and a character that throws fire with his calculus and a character that throws fire through his divine connection with Lutefisk.

I made a character based off of Mr. Croup, and it ended up being a gestalt abomination with levels in rogue, invisible blade, warblade, monk, and probably some other things I've already forgotten. In practice though, he was just a cunning and agile melee opponent with a feral close combat style.

[aza9999]

Some people go "whats the most powerful build i can make. Okay, now what story do i come up with to justify this to the DM" (thats if the DM even cares)

Some people go "My concept is x, his background is y and his motivations are z, what classes will help me build this concept"

I'm generally of the second school, i usually come up with a character concept that i like first and then work out how to build it effectively, but its up to players and DM's for what works in their game.

Some people are just playing a hack and slash game, some care about role-playing. Your game, your rules, your fun :)

[sonofzeal]

Some people go "whats the most powerful build i can make. Okay, now what story do i come up with to justify this to the DM" (thats if the DM even cares)
Nobody actually does this. Or, well, some probably do, but you won't see many on these boards. It's a solved problem - we now know how to ascend to infinite stats in all areas at level 1.

Instead, what you're seeing is people who optimize within a concept. Which is pretty much what you're doing. If your concept is Unarmed Martial Artist, you could take Monk, or "Improved Unarmed Strike" on a Fighter, or go Unarmed Swordsage. Each of those could have the same concept, background, and motivation, which are the same requirements you're using.

Nobody actually plays Pun-Pun as anything more than a practical joke. Nobody actually goes for "most powerful build". Instead, they go for some concept. And often, "...and he/she is GOOD at it" is an implicit part of the concept. If I build an unarmed martial artist, I generally want them to be GOOD at it. I want them to hurt people, to not get hurt, and to be able to do some clever martial artsy tricks along the way like grapples and throws and whatnot. So, I avoid Monk and Fighter, and go with Swordsage. Voila, I've fit my concept better by optimizing.

[Snowbluff]

I've played a Cleric/Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader/Ur-Priest/Ruby-Knight-Vindicator/Eternal-Blade. Fluff is something that should be shave of the sheep that is WotC writers not being able to cover everyone's needs. Add your own fluff to flavor.

[sonofzeal]

I've played a Cleric/Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader/Ur-Priest/Ruby-Knight-Vindicator/Eternal-Blade. Fluff is something that should be shave of the sheep that is WotC writers not being able to cover everyone's needs. Add your own fluff to flavor.
Wait, what?

[Thiyr]

Probably a "fallen" cleric. iirc, it's specifically called out as an option for entering ur-priest, the disillusioned cleric.

And to aza, I say this: I do both. for the same character. I get inspiration of "hey, this is a cool ability, how would I justify this...okay, i've got a really, really fleshed out character, what else could they do aside from that one trick?" It's a nifty trick, admittedly.

[Snowbluff]

Wait, what?

Their was, like, a requirement or something. I don't remember how this worked, but I think I got some prereq feats or something.

EDIT: What Thiyr said seems right, my character started as a war/planning cleric of Ilneval but then went into evil for himself. I think. I was in an altered state of consciousness at the time.

[Helldog]

Wizard/Psion
Cerebremancer, anyone?

[Feralventas]

I ran a character with an odd mix like these. Started out as a swashbuckler (live-fast-die-never fightan elf) barbarian (short temper with a lot of enthusiasm for fighting) who liked a good challenge, enjoyed company of other adventurers and had more weapons on him than limbs so he tied them to his knees (multi-weapon fighting with hidden weapons from Complete Scoundrel). As the game progressed,the party found itself lacking any kind of Mage, and seeing an option to show off that elfin heritage (favored class wizard) he got himself a book, hit the capital library up for some reading material, and came back a couple weeks later with a level in wizard (without anything resembling a diploma mind you, and a total 20 int after bonuses.). He proceeded from there into Abjurant Champion, still being a warrior (brawler more like). Of we'd kept going, he would have kept goin AChap, then gone to Eldritch Knight before finishing his formal studies after epic levels into Arcmage.

[TroubleBrewing]

Any class combination that has Fighty Class/Casty Class/Fightycasty Prestige Class/Casty Prestige Class is easily fluffed away as "fighty class who wanted some magic tricks".

That covers all of your Gish bases.

Honestly, I doubt there is a (RAW-legal) combination of classes the playground can't fluff into something totally awesome.

[missmvicious]

i refer to choises that are profound powerplay and do not have any meaning or sane justification.

That, I believe, is referred to as cheese and it's considered, at least, uncouth PC'ing, though some campaigns call for it. Thankfully, I've never been in a campaign like that, because I'd get slaughtered.

Building to make your character do what you imagined in your head is applauded and highly encouraged. That's just having a keen understanding of game/build mechanics. Building a broken/homebrewed, min-maxed gestalt monstrosity for the sole purpose of breaking the game is another thing entirely. I, for one, won't play with people like that, so I share your sentiment on that, as I'm sure many on this forum would.

[Godskook]

All of these are logical. I think what the OP is referring to is builds like the Dragonwrought Kobold (Druid casting archetype from FR sourcebook someewhere) Dread Necro 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Prestige Paladin (LN variant from Dragon) 4/Spellsword 1/Fatespinner 4 to get spontaneous casting from Druid, Cleric, and Wizard lists. No logic backstory-wise.

I chose my build based explicitly on the specifications he made and actual optimization we on the forums use. While your example is more powerful and 'awkward', it is also far less similar to the example he gave.

[HunterOfJello]

It's worth remembering that many fantasy icons are best expressed as multiclass characters.

Conan the Barbarian would obviously have levels in Barbarian, but his primary occupation in life is actually a thief. Most people who play d&d would admit that he definitely has a few levels in rogue. Others would say he also has levels in Fighter, or even that he has a majority of his levels in rogue and the rest in Barbarian. Using purely Barbarian or Rogue, you would not be able to create an accurate representation of Conan the Barbarian anywhere near as well as you can by multiclassing.

The ever popular Elminster Aumar, the Sage of Shadowdale, is a very popular d&d icon who is expressed by the author of Forgotten Realms as a Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 20/Archmage 5/Epic Wizard 4. Everyone's favorite rogue, Artemis Entreri, is classified as a Rogue 4/ Ranger 1/ Fighter 12/ Assassin 1. Finally, everyone's least favorite Drow, Drizzt Do'Urden is a Fighter 10/ Barbarian 1/Ranger of Mielikki 5.

[Big Fau]

Finally, everyone's least favorite Drow, Drizzt Do'Urden is a Fighter 10/ Barbarian 1/Ranger of Mielikki 5.

That's not true. The vocal number who hate CG Drow with scimitars don't hate the man himself, they hate people who try to pretend to be him, and in doing so disrupt the game's flow.

[chadmeister]

Mix and max most of the core base classes as much as you want, most of them are more toolkits.

Prestige classes are supposed to be organizations or specifics types of training, their fluff is more tightly bound to the class. I really look skeptically at any character with more than one prestige class.

Many of the expansion base classes also seem to have more fluff bound to the class, and shouldn't be picked up simply for the mechanical aspects unless that fluff fits in with the concept.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm with the people who say that classes are a mechanical concept designed to accurately represent your character's skillset.

So, for example:

"I am a dedicated and trained combatant, both armed and unarmed. I have learned to channel my fight or flight response to hone my reaction time when I need it most. I also have a few innate abilities, a legacy from an unknown heretage. I have spent much time learning how use my magic while in my armor, with a focus on using my magic defensively."

My build is:

Fighter2/WhirlPounceBarian1/Unarmed Swordsage2/Sorcerer4/SpellSword1/Abjurant Champion5

I can't think of another build which better describes this (unless you want to replace Fighter levels with Warblade, but that's only if you don't need the bonus feats).

If you have a problem with this, then I cannot strongly recommend Legend RPG (http://www.ruleofcool.com/?page_id=49), which is still free download for the rest of the week, that has a *MUCH* more simple multiclassing system. Take one of your three talent tracks. Replace it with someone else's talent track. Done.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

See, I don't think your problem is multiclassing, so much as it's dipping. Or maybe I'm just projecting my pet peeves onto you.

[Amphetryon]

Mix and max most of the core base classes as much as you want, most of them are more toolkits.

Prestige classes are supposed to be organizations or specifics types of training, their fluff is more tightly bound to the class. I really look skeptically at any character with more than one prestige class.

Could you explain the disconnect between classes and prestige classes? While there are some with an organization tied to them, there are many others - I daresay a majority - with no such constraints, and fluff that's likely to NEED to be changed in order to fit into many ongoing campaigns.

[Doughnut Master]

I don't even think dipping is much of a problem. As others have posted, if you have a concept, there isn't anything wrong with trying to make that concept work as efficiently as possible.

If dipping really irks you, then enforce multiclass xp penalties.

[Snowbluff]

I've played a Cleric/Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader/Ur-Priest/Ruby-Knight-Vindicator/Eternal-Blade.


I don't even think dipping is much of a problem. As others have posted, if you have a concept, there isn't anything wrong with trying to make that concept work as efficiently as possible.

If dipping really irks you, then enforce multiclass xp penalties.

Exp penalties only apply if you level base class that isn't a favored class 2 levels higher than you other classes. PrCs don't count for XP penalties. You'd have to homebrew your own rules to keep this from happening,and then you'd ust be making things difficult or everybody.

[Big Fau]

You'd have to homebrew your own rules to keep this from happening,and then you'd ust be making things difficult or everybody.

More difficult for the noncasters anyway. Most of the noncaster classes aren't worth taking to 20, whereas you can get away with Wizard 15/Archmage 5.

[ithildur]

Some of the justifications for mix and matching I've seen out there are more amusing than others definitely... though they might go down better if the posters at least used some sort of spellcheck and basic grammar so it's not painful to read their *cough* fascinating backstories. :smallsmile:

[shadow_archmagi]

Some of the justifications for mix and matching I've seen out there are more amusing than others definitely... though they might go down better if the posters at least used some sort of spellcheck and basic grammar so it's not painful to read their *cough* fascinating backstories. :smallsmile:


I've taken to not reading posts I don't want to read.

[Barlen]

One of the most awkward multiclassing problems has got to be the Swift hunter with cloistered cleric dip. Yet everytime someone is looking for build advice on a swift hunter it gets mentioned. You have a wilderness scout, master of the outdoors and you want him to spend a year locked in what is basically a monastary? Some already brought up the cloistered cleric, I wonder how many people have even thought of what thats supposed to be. How many even think of what the term cloistered means? It gets worse when the justify it using a Diety like fharlanghn whose fluff is the exact opposite of locking people inside a monastary to study for long periods of time.

In game the DMs response to a character dipping CC is: "Ok, so his character is spending the next 12 months in game while the BBEGs minion who just escaped is getting away.....what are the rest of you doing for that 12 months?


The barbarian issue can be covered 2 ways. Barbarian tribes have other classes (fighters, rangers, scouts, rogues, even clerics or druids for their shaman) and if the character sets up their background as coming from a tribe taking a dip their isn't really an issue. Otherwise you are looking at the Dances with wolves route. The guy from the city goes out into the wild, makes contact with a barbarian tribe, gets them to like him well enough that they invite him to join them through a complicated and often painful ritual......and in this case he abandons them a month later once he has what he wants.

[Lucid]

One of the most awkward multiclassing problems has got to be the Swift hunter with cloistered cleric dip. Yet everytime someone is looking for build advice on a swift hunter it gets mentioned. You have a wilderness scout, master of the outdoors and you want him to spend a year locked in what is basically a monastary? Some already brought up the cloistered cleric, I wonder how many people have even thought of what thats supposed to be. How many even think of what the term cloistered means? It gets worse when the justify it using a Diety like fharlanghn whose fluff is the exact opposite of locking people inside a monastary to study for long periods of time.

In game the DMs response to a character dipping CC is: "Ok, so his character is spending the next 12 months in game while the BBEGs minion who just escaped is getting away.....what are the rest of you doing for that 12 months?


The barbarian issue can be covered 2 ways. Barbarian tribes have other classes (fighters, rangers, scouts, rogues, even clerics or druids for their shaman) and if the character sets up their background as coming from a tribe taking a dip their isn't really an issue. Otherwise you are looking at the Dances with wolves route. The guy from the city goes out into the wild, makes contact with a barbarian tribe, gets them to like him well enough that they invite him to join them through a complicated and often painful ritual......and in this case he abandons them a month later once he has what he wants. While I agree with you on the cloistered Cleric thing, one could easily dip regular ol' cleric for Travel Devotion and TU on a swift hunter build.

Though I have to disagree with you when it comes to Barbarian dips. As others have said, Barbarian basically means "guy who fights well". All the fluff about coming from outside civilization and such can be done away with easily. What you have left is a tough guy that can hit harder when he gets angry/focuses his mind/goes into supersaiyan/etc...

[Urpriest]

There's also a lot of precedent for Urban Barbarians as basically violent thugs. So you could also simply be a jerk.

Cloistered Cleric I agree is a little weird, but I have to ask where you got the 1 year figure. Usually it takes much less than a year to gain a level.

[dgnslyr]

Maybe this "Cloistered" Cleric found a cloister within a forest grove? Rangers already have an element of spirituality, in the form of divine casting, so it doesn't seem out of place to have some divine casting. After spending many months fasting, meditating, and praying beneath the ancient trees, he has gained a better understanding of the ways of the forest, as well as a spark of divine magic.

[Greenish]

You have a wilderness scout, master of the outdoors and you want him to spend a year locked in what is basically a monastary?I think the common solution is to have the cloistered cleric to represent something else entirely. Fluff being mutable and all. :smallamused:

[Amphetryon]

The 'Cloistered Cleric' spent time reaching, and meditating in, a nigh-unreachable monastic retreat atop a mountain, away from all other distractions. That's one way to re-flavor it, anyway.

[Dr.Epic]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. You should only stick to one class per character. That's why all my characters are high level fighters. What could possibly be tougher than those?:smallwink:

[Lucid]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. You should only stick to one class per character. That's why all my characters are high level fighters. What could possibly be tougher than those?:smallwink: Uhm, :smallconfused:WTH!?!

High level single-classed monks obviously! All good saves, AC bonuses up the wazoo, jeez, what were you thinking?:smallwink:
Sorry, couldn't resist it, failed my will save

[Binks]

One of the most awkward multiclassing problems has got to be the Swift hunter with cloistered cleric dip.

How many even think of what the term cloistered means?

In game the DMs response to a character dipping CC is: "Ok, so his character is spending the next 12 months in game while the BBEGs minion who just escaped is getting away.....what are the rest of you doing for that 12 months?

Ah yes, because we all know that the name of a class completely determines its fluff, especially when using the RL definition. This is why all Monks studied in monasteries and are great at copying documents but terrible at combat, all Kensei's must use traditional Japanese swords and can't use any other weapons, and Rangers watch over national parks.

Nowhere in the fluff for Cloistered cleric does it say anything about being locked away for any amount of time, much less a full year (I'd hate to see how he'd handle a wizard dip. "Alright, this guy is spending the next 6 years studying ancient arcane arts while the world falls apart. What are the rest of you guys doing?).

That ranger dip? He's changing his focus from fighting for the wilderness to communing with it for a little while. Later on he realizes that fighting is important and takes what he learned from communing with it to fight better. Trivial to justify as long as you actually look at the fluff for the class rather than taking the real world definition and trying to apply it to a fantasy class :smallwink:.

[Dr.Epic]

Uhm, :smallconfused:WTH!?!

High level single-classed monks obviously! All good saves, AC bonuses up the wazoo, jeez, what were you thinking?:smallwink:
Sorry, couldn't resist it, failed my will save


http://images.wikia.com/avatar/images/a/ae/Aang_at_Jasmine_Dragon.png

"I'm a single-class monk and I'm like the most powerful bender alive!"

:smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Well, the Cloistered part isn't actually meant to be taken literally as far as I can tell, it's more metaphorical in that they're less, ah, martially inclined.

Certainly it isn't meant to be taken as some sort of requirement or it would have said so.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

http://images.wikia.com/avatar/images/a/ae/Aang_at_Jasmine_Dragon.png

"I'm a single-class monk and I'm like the most powerful bender alive!"

:smalltongue:

Tashlatora doesn't count :smalltongue:

[Helldog]

Prestige classes are supposed to be organizations or specifics types of training, their fluff is more tightly bound to the class. I really look skeptically at any character with more than one prestige class.

Many of the expansion base classes also seem to have more fluff bound to the class, and shouldn't be picked up simply for the mechanical aspects unless that fluff fits in with the concept.
Many PrCs have this section called "Adaptation". It is giving suggestions on how you could refluff the class to better fit your game. If your DM is okay with it, you can re-flavor any class (base or PrC) however you like.
Not to mention that WoTC themselves are suggesting refluffing in countless splatbooks and in articles from their site. For example "Crusaders, Swordsages and Warblades in The Realms" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911).

[Curmudgeon]

Sometimes dips for juicy capabilities are just that. They're like summers spent at band camp or computer camp: something extra, which doesn't need to be integrated into whatever you do with the rest of your training (the regular school curriculum).

Sometimes dips are entirely in keeping with the character archetype, and needed because the game authors slipped some mental gears and forgot to include obvious capabilities in the base class. Rogues don't have Hide in Plain Sight; why? That's why you get Rogue X/Shadowdancer 1 builds, despite the very steep entry requirements for that prestige class: it's a core capability of the character, which just happens to be completely missing from the core character class. The accumulation of the feats and skills required to enter Shadowdancer makes the character look pretty awkward, but when you finally get there it makes sense.

[Socratov]

haha, a lot of classdips isn't an abomination, a half-ogre, half-dragon barbarian is... not only he has a green leathery skin riddled with pocks and pimples, but he has scales too... :smallconfused:

the player justified it with it (?) beïng really REALLY ugly...

aaaaand that's what I played with on my first DnD game ever...

Oh, and yeah, he was planning on long term to go gish :smalleek: with a cohort... there I was, a half elf bard, caugt between a DM who wanted to kill the abomination by story (and crunch) and aforementioned abomination... then the following happened: the DM uses aqautic creatures who can use a ranged stun on the party, all survive (even the abomination) except for my character. I then made a dreadpirate with far too high charisma and guilted the DM into giving me an item boostimg my chachecks, my leadership score and all my skills and attackrolls (and my allies within 100ft. too), allowing me to completely wipe a continent's navy from the map with ony a handful of pirates... And yet, for some idiotic reason I had fun... I may be just a weird fellow after all...

[Varil]

Honestly, if you're collecting more than ~4 classes total I'm probably going to be displeased by your build no matter how well you justify it with backstory. It's not because it can't be done...it's because it looks like a mess.

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.

To borrow from a certain competition...it seems inelegant. If you can't accomplish your character's concept in 3-4 classes, I highly suspect you're not trying hard enough...or your being purposely over specific with your "concept" in order to make it more exclusive to your desired build.

[umbergod]

Honestly, if you're collecting more than ~4 classes total I'm probably going to be displeased by your build no matter how well you justify it with backstory. It's not because it can't be done...it's because it looks like a mess.

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.

To borrow from a certain competition...it seems inelegant. If you can't accomplish your character's concept in 3-4 classes, I highly suspect you're not trying hard enough...or your being purposely over specific with your "concept" in order to make it more exclusive to your desired build.

except High-OP games require this more often than not. not that I like it, as I prefer t3 level of play, but high op games are gonna need you to eke out every bit of power from your character concept and design as you can, and it often leads to class dipping and multiple prestige classes.

[Prime32]

Honestly, if you're collecting more than ~4 classes total I'm probably going to be displeased by your build no matter how well you justify it with backstory. It's not because it can't be done...it's because it looks like a mess.

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.

To borrow from a certain competition...it seems inelegant. If you can't accomplish your character's concept in 3-4 classes, I highly suspect you're not trying hard enough...or your being purposely over specific with your "concept" in order to make it more exclusive to your desired build.Consider that in most cases, none of a single-classed spellcaster's abilities will have any connection to each other whatsoever (shooting fire, flying, shapeshifting, opening portals, telekinesis, stopping time and controlling peoples' minds?), and they have far more abilities than other classes.

"Wizard 20" is picking and choosing the powers you want far more than some cleric-dip/swift hunter/fist of the forest build, with the in-character reason being that you study whatever makes you more powerful.

[gbprime]

Many PrCs have this section called "Adaptation". It is giving suggestions on how you could refluff the class to better fit your game. If your DM is okay with it, you can re-flavor any class (base or PrC) however you like.
Not to mention that WoTC themselves are suggesting refluffing in countless splatbooks and in articles from their site. For example "Crusaders, Swordsages and Warblades in The Realms" (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070911).

Exactly. Campaign comes before fluff. You don't have to have the Mystic Order of X in your campaign world to use the prestige class written for them, but you do need to work it in someplace.

Examples... In my setting, the only source for training as a Mystic Theurge is under the acolytes of one particular demigod. They've only ever taught their secrets to one outsider... The PC who had to move heaven and earth to prove himself worthy. And on that same continent there are many regions where Druidism is outlawed, thanks to an ancient taboo against shape shifters. So the Druids there have re-styled themselves as "Elementalists" and are using the non-wild-shape variant from UA.

As the DM, just rework the storyline around whatever PrC your players want to use. And as a player, approach your DM to see if you can fit something new into the campaign world. I'll betcha you can. :smallwink:

[Hirax]

Honestly, if you're collecting more than ~4 classes total I'm probably going to be displeased by your build no matter how well you justify it with backstory. It's not because it can't be done...it's because it looks like a mess.

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.

To borrow from a certain competition...it seems inelegant. If you can't accomplish your character's concept in 3-4 classes, I highly suspect you're not trying hard enough...or your being purposely over specific with your "concept" in order to make it more exclusive to your desired build.

That is absurd. What is the problem with wizard5/incantatrix10/mindbender1/archmage3/olin gisir1, for instance? Or ranger1/barbarian1/fighter2/warblade1/bloodstorm blade4/master thrower3/witch slayer5/warblade+3? Or the classic sorcadin build? All of those builds require no tortuous fluff bending of any kind. I'm starting to believe that people that hate dipping are either devoid of imagination, or are building up the fluff of classes to be more than it really is. Taking a new class doesn't mean you just totally rethought your way of life.

[Hiro Protagonest]

http://images.wikia.com/avatar/images/a/ae/Aang_at_Jasmine_Dragon.png

"I'm a single-class monk and I'm like the most powerful bender alive!"

:smalltongue:

That's not a monk, that's a quadruple gestalt with all homebrew classes!

[Treblain]

There's bias on this subject in that Tier 1 classes are more viable as single-class builds. Wizard 20, Druid 20, and Cleric 20 are builds you can still customize greatly through spell selection at any level of play; multiclassing to get the abilities you want is unnecessary.

On the other side of the tier spectrum, you simply can't do this. It is absurd to take the 20th level of rogue. Most other classes are front-loaded and full of dead levels, especially as you level higher. The jumbled design of 3.5 forces noncasters/ToBers to abandon single-class builds; blaming them for this is unfair.

It's stupid to demand that players come up with a contrived backstory about how they were raised by a secret order of monks, then ran away to study with an ancient cult of dragon-worshippers, then got kidnapped by space pirates, then joined the circus, and then got chosen by their god to save the world. Sufficiently creative players can come up with a backstory to justify any build, no matter how complicated. That creativity can be better spent elsewhere.

[Rubik]

There's bias on this subject in that Tier 1 classes are more viable as single-class builds. Wizard 20, Druid 20, and Cleric 20 are builds you can still customize greatly through spell selection at any level of play; multiclassing to get the abilities you want is unnecessary.

On the other side of the tier spectrum, you simply can't do this. It is absurd to take the 20th level of rogue. Most other classes are front-loaded and full of dead levels, especially as you level higher. The jumbled design of 3.5 forces noncasters/ToBers to abandon single-class builds; blaming them for this is unfair.

It's stupid to demand that players come up with a contrived backstory about how they were raised by a secret order of monks, then ran away to study with an ancient cult of dragon-worshippers, then got kidnapped by space pirates, then joined the circus, and then got chosen by their god to save the world. Sufficiently creative players can come up with a backstory to justify any build, no matter how complicated. That creativity can be better spent elsewhere.Amen! Preach it brother!

AKA, +1/+1/+1

[Helldog]

It's stupid to demand that players come up with a contrived backstory about how they were raised by a secret order of monks, then ran away to study with an ancient cult of dragon-worshippers, then got kidnapped by space pirates, then joined the circus, and then got chosen by their god to save the world. Sufficiently creative players can come up with a backstory to justify any build, no matter how complicated. That creativity can be better spent elsewhere.
OTOH it's hell of a backstory. :smallbiggrin:

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's bias on this subject in that Tier 1 classes are more viable as single-class builds. Wizard 20, Druid 20, and Cleric 20 are builds you can still customize greatly through spell selection at any level of play; multiclassing to get the abilities you want is unnecessary.

On the other side of the tier spectrum, you simply can't do this. It is absurd to take the 20th level of rogue. Most other classes are front-loaded and full of dead levels, especially as you level higher. The jumbled design of 3.5 forces noncasters/ToBers to abandon single-class builds; blaming them for this is unfair.

It's stupid to demand that players come up with a contrived backstory about how they were raised by a secret order of monks, then ran away to study with an ancient cult of dragon-worshippers, then got kidnapped by space pirates, then joined the circus, and then got chosen by their god to save the world. Sufficiently creative players can come up with a backstory to justify any build, no matter how complicated. That creativity can be better spent elsewhere.

ToB is perfectly good tier 3 single-classed. Although swordsages might want one or two levels of crusader or warblade in the mid- to high-levels for extra maneuvers if they run out of the swordsage ones, and crusaders and warblades would be good with a one or two level swordsage dip to get a bunch of lower level options along with their higher level ones. Plus there's the classic melee dips and gishes, but that's universal for melee, even clerics like fighter and barbarian dips.

[Greenish]

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.Because asking that from the player who actually made the character is too simple, eh?


ToB is perfectly good tier 3 single-classed.I think he meant "non-casters & non-ToBers".

[Snowbluff]

Because asking that from the player who actually made the character is too simple, eh?

I think he meant "non-casters & non-ToBers".

Agreed. Also, if your players know more the classes than you do, maybe you don't built/play enough.

[sonofzeal]

Honestly, if you're collecting more than ~4 classes total I'm probably going to be displeased by your build no matter how well you justify it with backstory. It's not because it can't be done...it's because it looks like a mess.

In a game with so much bookwork already required, as a DM I'd prefer not to have to skip all over the place, likely through multiple source books, to determine what your build ACTUALLY does.

To borrow from a certain competition...it seems inelegant. If you can't accomplish your character's concept in 3-4 classes, I highly suspect you're not trying hard enough...or your being purposely over specific with your "concept" in order to make it more exclusive to your desired build.
I do not understand this "over specific" you refer to.

I had a character that I tend to mention often in these threads, who mixed half a dozen different classes, including several PrCs. He has an orcish chieftan of a dead tribe, who was devoted to (and in many ways attempted to emulate) Odin. Odin was the god of war (Fighter), battle frenzy (Barbarian, Berserker), knowledge and insight (Factotum, Rogue), the hunt (Ranger) - and then I took Champion of GwynharwyfOdin, homebrewed to run off Int instead of Wis since it fit Odin better, to help tie it all together.

My concept was pretty simple, a more noble and thoughtful orc who believed that a leader should understand everything those under his command did, and who served and attempted to emulate the Allfather Odin. No single class, or even pair of classes, captured what I was going for as well as the massively-multiclassed version I ended up with.

And I don't see what's wrong with that.


And you didn't need to skip all over to see what he did. It was mostly all there on his character sheet. The end result was pretty simple - he could fight, had good skill checks, and had a variety of useful-but-not-powerful abilities he could use to solve problems creatively and augment either. He had one arcane spell-like from Factotum ("Enlarge Person" for more melee power), and a couple cleric/paladin spells from Champion of GwynharwyfOdin. But most of what he did was skill checks and hitting people. Not really hard for a DM to run for.

[Greenish]

Agreed. Also, if your players know more the classes than you do, maybe you don't built/play enough.I don't think having a player more obsessed familiar with the game than you is an actual deficiency a DM. I certainly wouldn't require it from my DMs.

[enderlord99]

Uhm, :smallconfused:WTH!?!

High level single-classed monks obviously! All good saves, AC bonuses up the wazoo, jeez, what were you thinking?:smallwink:
Sorry, couldn't resist it, failed my will save


Monks!? What about Samurai? Now there's some of the toughest stuff around.:smalltongue:

[DoctorGlock]

Monks!? What about Samurai? Now there's some of the toughest stuff around.:smalltongue:

They would be if Katanas weren't underpowered in the D20 system...:smallbiggrin:

[Varil]

That is absurd. What is the problem with wizard5/incantatrix10/mindbender1/archmage3/olin gisir1, for instance? Or ranger1/barbarian1/fighter2/warblade1/bloodstorm blade4/master thrower3/witch slayer5/warblade+3? Or the classic sorcadin build? All of those builds require no tortuous fluff bending of any kind. I'm starting to believe that people that hate dipping are either devoid of imagination, or are building up the fluff of classes to be more than it really is. Taking a new class doesn't mean you just totally rethought your way of life.

Classic Sorcadin being...what? Sorcerer/Paladin/Insert 10 level gish here/Abjurant Champion? 4 Classes. Bam.

What's that Ranger/Etc doing that, say, taking the ranger-flavored Barbarian ACF in UA can't? If you're using Warblade/manuevers, do you *really* need to tack on three other melee base classes on your way to your more specific prestige classes? I don't even care that they're dips, I care that you're grabbing a couple levels from 7 classes for a minimum of mechanical advantage.

A thrower(and moreso, a manuever user) doesn't need a typical charge build, and rage, while nice, is only minimally useful with only 1 barbarian level.

A Warblade 5/Bloodstorm Blade 4/Master Thrower 3/Witchblade 5 is a 17 level build by itself.

Do you really so desperately need rage, 2 bonus feats, and...track? What are you even getting from Ranger here? I suspect that if you need so many classes to make a concept seem "real" to you, you lack imagination.


Because asking that from the player who actually made the character is too simple, eh?

Oh, yes, because as a DM I shouldn't even review the material my players hand me, and should just take the summary instead. Pfft. I review the builds of my players both to determine what they can do, to work out unusual interactions between classes, to access their power, and just to generally proof-read their work. Even for a player I trust utterly, I'd never just go "sure whatever" unless the campaign was a one-shot or something.


Agreed. Also, if your players know more the classes than you do, maybe you don't built/play enough.

As it happens, I'm probably the most experienced player in my group. I guess I shouldn't ever get to play, then? Since I know more than my potential DMs. I review sourcebooks pretty regularly, looking for interesting builds, both for characters I play and for challenges for my players, but I don't have a perfect memory. I usually recall that the Incantatrix is in a Faerun book, but not which one. I often forget if a prestige class is in Complete Mage or Complete Arcane. It happens. Perhaps you should accept someone's opinion as just that, rather than assuming incompetence?


I do not understand this "over specific" you refer to.

I had a character that I tend to mention often in these threads, who mixed half a dozen different classes, including several PrCs. He has an orcish chieftan of a dead tribe, who was devoted to (and in many ways attempted to emulate) Odin. Odin was the god of war (Fighter), battle frenzy (Barbarian, Berserker), knowledge and insight (Factotum, Rogue), the hunt (Ranger) - and then I took Champion of GwynharwyfOdin, homebrewed to run off Int instead of Wis since it fit Odin better, to help tie it all together.

Even in the worst case scenario, I'd like to point out this is only 5 classes, which is pretty close to my "acceptable" mark over the usual. Without Rogue(which I argue doesn't really fit Odin at all) it's 4 classes, well within my acceptable range. I would say that some sort of mount-oriented class might be better than fighter, to help you better mimic Sleipnir, though I suppose your fighter levels might help that.

[darksolitaire]

A thrower(and moreso, a manuever user) doesn't need a typical charge build, and rage, while nice, is only minimally useful with only 1 barbarian level.

Do you really so desperately need rage, 2 bonus feats, and...track? What are you even getting from Ranger here? I suspect that if you need so many classes to make a concept seem "real" to you, you lack imagination.


It's not just about "need". What if I just make a build for a character, and I just want him to rage also? And when exhausting other strategic options, my character likes to charge into melee?

Also, caster's spell list is probably more stuff to remember then mundane's abilities with ten dips or so.

[Greenish]

Oh, yes, because as a DM I shouldn't even review the material my players hand me, and should just take the summary instead. That's not what I said. :smallsigh:

[dextercorvia]

Also, caster's spell list is probably more stuff to remember then mundane's abilities with ten dips or so.

Perhaps he only allows casters to choose spells from the SRD, so he doesn't have to look in more than one place.

Also, feats. Will you not let me take a feat from Frostburn, just so you don't have to look in the book? I can understand keeping the options streamlined, but you can build diptastic melee without leaving d20srd. Cf. Horizon Tripper.

[Kaje]

All of these are logical. I think what the OP is referring to is builds like the Dragonwrought Kobold (Druid casting archetype from FR sourcebook someewhere) Dread Necro 1/Rainbow Servant 10/Prestige Paladin (LN variant from Dragon) 4/Spellsword 1/Fatespinner 4 to get spontaneous casting from Druid, Cleric, and Wizard lists. No logic backstory-wise.

And it doesn't work mechanically either. Let's start with it being highly debatable that rainbow servant would make DN a divine casting class, and end with the part about how it doesn't have paladin spell slots. And the wizard spells don't get added to your spell list. Also, how many feats does that thing need at level 1?

[CTrees]

Also, how many feats does that thing need at level 1?

Well, uh, it started off as an elf with the flaws Feeble, Frail, Meager Fortitude, and Murky-Eyed, devoted itself to an elder evil, then (with help of the friendly "make my background and templates work" wizard) danced the Dark Chaos Shuffle, utilizing the four free weapon proficiency feats from being an elf to help build his repretoire, then (with further help from the friendly wizard of ultimate loopholes) got permanently polymorphed into the variant dragonwrought kobold, conveniently removing all four of his flaws (as they related to his physique, which has changed), but not removing the additional feats, which have since been traded away via DCS (so they couldn't really be removed, anyway).

EDIT: That was, obviously, sarcastic, but now I'm rather curious just how many feats it's possible to get at first level (realistically restricting to two flaws, instead of the four listed here for purposes of sheer silliness)...

[Amphetryon]

Well, uh, it started off as an elf with the flaws Feeble, Frail, Meager Fortitude, and Murky-Eyed, devoted itself to an elder evil, then (with help of the friendly "make my background and templates work" wizard) danced the Dark Chaos Shuffle, utilizing the four free weapon proficiency feats from being an elf to help build his repretoire, then (with further help from the friendly wizard of ultimate loopholes) got permanently polymorphed into the variant dragonwrought kobold, conveniently removing all four of his flaws (as they related to his physique, which has changed), but not removing the additional feats, which have since been traded away via DCS (so they couldn't really be removed, anyway).

EDIT: That was, obviously, sarcastic, but now I'm rather curious just how many feats it's possible to get at first level (realistically restricting to two flaws, instead of the four listed here for purposes of sheer silliness)...
Worship an Elder Evil = 5 free feats. Bam. Human Wizard (for Scribe Scroll) + 2 Flaws + Elder Evil is 10 feats available, unless my math is off.

[dextercorvia]

Worship an Elder Evil = 5 free feats. Bam. Human Wizard (for Scribe Scroll) + 2 Flaws + Elder Evil is 10 feats available, unless my math is off.

Don't forget Taint. You get a bonus feat when you hit Moderate and Severe Taint.

[TroubleBrewing]

You'd have to be one sick dude to hit Moderate Taint at 1st level... :smalleek:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Don't forget Taint. You get a bonus feat when you hit Moderate and Severe Taint.

Be undead to avoid the nasty penalties due taint... and I am pretty sure True Shinken made a build that had at least a hundred feats; but I can't find it :smallsigh:

[Amphetryon]

Be undead to avoid the nasty penalties due taint... and I am pretty sure True Shinken made a build that had at least a hundred feats; but I can't find it :smallsigh:

That's true, but it's somewhat difficult to make an undead at ECL 1. It's not impossible, I'm pretty sure, but it is somewhat difficult.

[CTrees]

That's true, but it's somewhat difficult to make an undead at ECL 1. It's not impossible, I'm pretty sure, but it is somewhat difficult.

Necropolitan?

[Amphetryon]

Necropolitan?

Lose a level and XP; entering it before 3rd level just kills your character in 99% of all cases.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Need to be at least level 3 to avoid dying permanently.

Edit: Swordsage'd

[Rubik]

And yet oddly, you're still an ECL 1 character, so it works.

[sonofzeal]

Even in the worst case scenario, I'd like to point out this is only 5 classes, which is pretty close to my "acceptable" mark over the usual. Without Rogue(which I argue doesn't really fit Odin at all) it's 4 classes, well within my acceptable range. I would say that some sort of mount-oriented class might be better than fighter, to help you better mimic Sleipnir, though I suppose your fighter levels might help that.
Actually, I count up to eight - five base classes and three PrCs

Fighter
Barbarian
Ranger
Rogue
Factotum

and

Berserker (from Deities and Demigods)
Frenzied Berserker (from CWar)
Champion of GwynharwyfOdin


Now, not all versions of the build used all of those, especially at low/mid levels. I often worked around Ranger by using Wilderness Rogue or vice versa, and I never actually got around to Frenzied Berserker because it depends on whether Righteous Wrath applies to Frenzy to make it playable, and it's an extra combat power boost I ended up not needing.

But all of those classes fit, and I don't see what's wrong with using any/all of them. Heck, add "Warblade" to the base class list and "Unseen Seer" to the PrC list.


Could I make the character only using three or less classes? Probably. Could a paint a landscape only using three colours? Probably. But it wouldn't be as good, and it wouldn't be as true to my vision.

Character crafting for me is to some extent an artistic endeavour. And while it can be fun to limit my tools as a special challenge - a favourite artist of mine occasionally limits himself to a single brush - I seriously cannot understand where you get off on judging other people for using all the tools at their disposal. It's a completely alien attitude to me, like condemning an artist for using too many brushstrokes.

[CTrees]

And yet oddly, you're still an ECL 1 character, so it works.

Exactly. Amphetryon specified ECL 1, as opposed to level 1 :smallwink:

[Amphetryon]

Exactly. Amphetryon specified ECL 1, as opposed to level 1 :smallwink:
But you're unlikely to MAKE one at ECL 1, which was the other stipulation. It's possible, but unlikely. It seems much more likely to become one.

[Hirax]

Classic Sorcadin being...what? Sorcerer/Paladin/Insert 10 level gish here/Abjurant Champion? 4 Classes. Bam.

What's that Ranger/Etc doing that, say, taking the ranger-flavored Barbarian ACF in UA can't? If you're using Warblade/manuevers, do you *really* need to tack on three other melee base classes on your way to your more specific prestige classes? I don't even care that they're dips, I care that you're grabbing a couple levels from 7 classes for a minimum of mechanical advantage.

A thrower(and moreso, a manuever user) doesn't need a typical charge build, and rage, while nice, is only minimally useful with only 1 barbarian level.

A Warblade 5/Bloodstorm Blade 4/Master Thrower 3/Witchblade 5 is a 17 level build by itself.

Do you really so desperately need rage, 2 bonus feats, and...track? What are you even getting from Ranger here? I suspect that if you need so many classes to make a concept seem "real" to you, you lack imagination.


Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellsword1/AbjurantChamp5/SacEx8 is the standard issue sorcadin.

And what are you talking about? You missed the entire point, it doesn't matter whether all of those abilities are needed. It is an entirely coherent character, regardless of how powerful it is. Who are you to tell ANYBODY what abilities a character shouldn't have? Your proposed build is the same concept with less power. The only reason to choose yours would be because of OCD about multiclassing.

But just to straighten things out, ranger is there because warblade2 wouldn't add anything, and more class skills and skill points is more useful than uncanny dodge. Rage is nice, but it's far less important than pounce, which has unlimited uses per day. Maneuvers aren't important to the build frankly, warblade is only there to qualify for bloodstorm blade, so that thrown weapons can be used in charges. Trying to make a maneuver based thrower isn't worthwhile.

[Varil]

Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellsword1/AbjurantChamp5/SacEx8 is the standard issue sorcadin.

And what are you talking about? You missed the entire point, it doesn't matter whether all of those abilities are needed. It is an entirely coherent character, regardless of how powerful it is. Who are you to tell ANYBODY what abilities a character shouldn't have? Your proposed build is the same concept with less power. The only reason to choose yours would be because of OCD about multiclassing.

But just to straighten things out, ranger is there because warblade2 wouldn't add anything, and more class skills and skill points is more useful than uncanny dodge. Rage is nice, but it's far less important than pounce, which has unlimited uses per day.

Are you grabbing them for flavor, or for power? Nobody is stupid enough to argue multiclassing is less powerful than single classing. I'm arguing that designing a schizophrenic build(not character, BUILD) just for the sake of being able to bump your strength by four points one minute a day, or to be able to full attack on a charge when you've already got an assortment of manuevers for move-attack options, is both pointless and messy.

Exhaust your tactical options? The average D&D fight is like 4 rounds. Maybe 6 if things are dragging out. That's the entire point of the manuever mechanics, to ensure you have tactical versatility on a per-encounter basis.

[Hirax]

schizophrenic build(not character, BUILD)

You are making a meaningless distinction.

[Amphetryon]

Are you grabbing them for flavor, or for power? Nobody is stupid enough to argue multiclassing is less powerful than single classing.
Druid 20 would beg to differ.

[dextercorvia]

Worship an Elder Evil = 5 free feats. Bam. Human Wizard (for Scribe Scroll) + 2 Flaws + Elder Evil is 10 feats available, unless my math is off.

You can also be a monk instead of wizard for 2 class feats instead of 1, but then you are a monk. That might explain why you have severe taint...

[gkathellar]

Be undead to avoid the nasty penalties due taint... and I am pretty sure True Shinken made a build that had at least a hundred feats; but I can't find it :smallsigh:

The evil subtype also lets you dodge Taint Penalties (and is preferable for Tainted Scholar abuse).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Is there a way to get the (Evil) Subtype at ECL 1? The only way I remember is by the Ritual of Association in SS and IIRC it is quite pricey.

[Greenish]

I'm arguing that designing a schizophrenic build(not character, BUILD) just for the sake of being able to bump your strength by four points one minute a day, or to be able to full attack on a charge when you've already got an assortment of manuevers for move-attack options, is both pointless and messy.So, it's the wrong way to have fun, then?

[sonofzeal]

So, it's the wrong way to have fun, then?
Yes, exactly - because a painting with too many brushstrokes, or a novel with too many words, or a piece of pottery spun too many times, is "pointless and messy".

[dextercorvia]

Yes, exactly - because a painting with too many brushstrokes, or a novel with too many words, or a piece of pottery spun too many times, is "pointless and messy".

That's why instead of picking a bunch of different feats, we should all just pick toughness every time we get a feat.

[Dr.Epic]

That's not a monk, that's a quadruple gestalt with all homebrew classes!

So a munchkin/rules lawyer then?:smallconfused:

:smallwink:

[TroubleBrewing]

Yes, exactly - because a painting with too many brushstrokes, or a novel with too many words, or a piece of pottery spun too many times, is "pointless and messy".

Don't forget that symphony with way too many notes, or the masterful skyscraper with too many floors.

More parts does not mean less elegant.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

But you're unlikely to MAKE one at ECL 1, which was the other stipulation. It's possible, but unlikely. It seems much more likely to become one.

Awakened Skeleton?

[shadow_archmagi]

pointless and messy.


I don't know about you, but time spent looking at player character sheets is a pretty minimal one for me. I'll spend maybe an hour familiarizing myself with all my characters, and that includes their fluff and whatnot. After that I very rarely feel compelled to look at their sheet, even if it is messy.

Why is this such an issue for you? It seems like a very arbitrary restriction to try to limit the number of classes someone can take because you think "too many things" is bad. After all, a single spell is basically on par with a class feature, and wizards get two every level, plus whatever they can scrounge up. Fighters constantly get feats.

[chadmeister]

Yes, exactly - because a painting with too many brushstrokes, or a novel with too many words, or a piece of pottery spun too many times, is "pointless and messy".

I don't see how you can spin pottery too many times, but otherwise yes.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I don't see how you can spin pottery too many times, but otherwise yes.

Isn't that the point of Son of Zeal's post?

Still I agree with the general point, I find those kinds of restrictions pointless and arbitrary, though I have to confess that due the play-style of the group I used to play 3e with I had to limit myself somewhat when building characters (to my displeasure).

[TroubleBrewing]

I don't see how you can spin pottery too many times, but otherwise yes.

There really needs to be a "sarcasm" font.

[kardar233]

Using blue as a sarcasm font is totally underground, you probably haven't heard of it.

[Socratov]

Using blue as a sarcasm font is totally underground, you probably haven't heard of it.

blue is allready sarcasm, i propose we use yellow for hipster comments... :smalltongue:

[CTrees]

blue is allready sarcasm, i propose we use yellow for hipster comments... :smalltongue:

I'd suggets white, because you proably haven't seen them.

[Binks]

Personally I've never seen the need to use more than 1-3 classes in a build, but that's because I tend to make pretty straightforward characters in execution whose complexity comes from playing with stereotypes (oh look it's the big dumb half-orc with a battle-axe and oh geez he's doing calculus). I would never limit a player to a certain number of classes, however, because what's the point?

I mean, it's been established that:
A) Single class characters can be every bit as broken powerful as multiclass, and it's actually easier to be powerful with a single class character (you don't do lots of multiclasses for power, you go wizards or druid 20)
B) It is entirely possible to come up with a good story for why your character has this particular list of class features/abilities regardless of the list of classes (this has been demonstrated enough times in this thread I'm just going to assume it. If you want to challenge it go ahead and post something you don't think can be justified IC)
C) Multiclass characters do not, on their own, have more complexity in what they can do in a round than single class characters (just about any martial multiclass vs. wizard 20 for example)
D) Some people want to play a heavily multiclassed character

With all that being true, why restrict multiclassing? If you're really that unhappy about it then just strictly use the 3.5 multiclass penalties, but why would you arbitrarily restrict your player's fun when there's no reason besides 'it looks messy'? Your sense of aesthetics being offended is not a reason to prevent others from playing what they want to play if it's balance and fits in the game world.

[Greenish]

blue is allready sarcasm, i propose we use yellow for hipster comments... :smalltongue:Yellow is too mainstream.

[Gandariel]

Color = Transparent? really?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Color = Transparent? really?

Hm, it's not working for some reason. But it's not switching to blue, which is the default for if a color doesn't exist.

[Lycar]

Could I make the character only using three or less classes? Probably. Could a paint a landscape only using three colours? Probably. But it wouldn't be as good, and it wouldn't be as true to my vision.
Sorry sonofzeal but this is too good to pass up. :smallredface:

So three colours, eh? Let's take red, yellow and blue and take it from here. Mix some blue and yellow and you get green, mix yellow and red for orange, mix red and blue for violet. Mix all three for brown. Bam, all the colours you need for a really nice landscape. :smalltongue:

So you really only need 3 basic colours: Adept, Expert and Warrior. Go mix. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar

[Greenish]

Hm, it's not working for some reason. But it's not switching to blue, which is the default for if a color doesn't exist.You're probably too mainstream for it.

[Prime32]

Sorry sonofzeal but this is too good to pass up. :smallredface:

So three colours, eh? Let's take red, yellow and blue and take it from here. Mix some blue and yellow and you get green, mix yellow and red for orange, mix red and blue for violet. Mix all three for brown. Bam, all the colours you need for a really nice landscape. :smalltongue:

So you really only need 3 basic colours: Adept, Expert and Warrior. Go mix. :smallbiggrin:

LycarExcept that if red is adept and blue is warrior, purple would be duskblade or something.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sorry sonofzeal but this is too good to pass up. :smallredface:

So three colours, eh? Let's take red, yellow and blue and take it from here. Mix some blue and yellow and you get green, mix yellow and red for orange, mix red and blue for violet. Mix all three for brown. Bam, all the colours you need for a really nice landscape. :smalltongue:

So you really only need 3 basic colours: Adept, Expert and Warrior. Go mix. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar

Mixes are PrCs. So four PrCs.

[chadmeister]

Mixes are PrCs. So four PrCs.

No, Prestige Classes are pearlescent and glitter and metallic colors

[DonutBoy12321]

Sorry sonofzeal but this is too good to pass up. :smallredface:

So three colours, eh? Let's take red, yellow and blue and take it from here. Mix some blue and yellow and you get green, mix yellow and red for orange, mix red and blue for violet. Mix all three for brown. Bam, all the colours you need for a really nice landscape. :smalltongue:

So you really only need 3 basic colours: Adept, Expert and Warrior. Go mix. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar

Last I checked, the three colors were Generic Warrior, Generic Spellcaster, and Generic Expert.

[sonofzeal]

Sorry sonofzeal but this is too good to pass up. :smallredface:

So three colours, eh? Let's take red, yellow and blue and take it from here. Mix some blue and yellow and you get green, mix yellow and red for orange, mix red and blue for violet. Mix all three for brown. Bam, all the colours you need for a really nice landscape. :smalltongue:

So you really only need 3 basic colours: Adept, Expert and Warrior. Go mix. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar
I've studied art, and I'm fully aware that you can mix away. That said, try it some time. It'd bleedin' difficult, and in practice I wouldn't get nearly the same range and nuance of shades. Particularly, I'd also need white and black to produce anything resembling a work of art, and I'd save myself a massive headache if I also had a couple good greens and browns, perhaps a skin tone, maybe a purple...

This was exactly why I said it the way I did. Yes I can mix three colours endlessly. But it wouldn't be as good, and it wouldn't be as true to my vision. Which is exactly what I said in my post you quoted.

Same goes for multiclassing.

[ithildur]

Endless supply of grins reading through this thread.

Someone please cook up a background for a CG Half Drow half vampire paladin/assassin/blackguard/Cloistered Cleric/Doomguide/Palemaster/monk. Bonus points for angst filled childhood.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Endless supply of grins reading through this thread.

Someone please cook up a background for a CG Half Drow half vampire paladin/assassin/blackguard/Cloistered Cleric/Doomguide/Palemaster/monk. Bonus points for angst filled childhood.

Shouldn't be too hard... just crib Drizzt's notes, switch a few variables, and you're good to go.

Give me a mechanical reason to do so, and I might write the backstory :smalltongue:

[shadow_archmagi]

Endless supply of grins reading through this thread.

Someone please cook up a background for a CG Half Drow half vampire paladin/assassin/blackguard/Cloistered Cleric/Doomguide/Palemaster/monk. Bonus points for angst filled childhood.

Aneirin was a typical drow until he was kidnapped by vampires posing as clerics who suppressed his evil nature (and all memory of the events) using powerful magic, and then dropped the conditioned child off at a monastery. He learned to fight the injustices of the world, gaining power and influence. Inevitably he discovered his own mental barriers and, with the aid of his trusted friend and mentor, managed to restore his memories.

Discovering his dark past (and the church's (faked) involvement!) caused him to fly into a rage, and the addition of his old drow personality made it impossible to maintain life at a monastery. He immediately Fell as a paladin and spent some years as a mercenary, slowly learning the art of killing people really quickly. He eventually took up with a cult and became a blackguard. Eventually, he became so immersed in dark lore that he was spending more time studying it than fighting. From the dark books, he learned enough psychiatry to realize it was vampires he hated, not god. He spent a few years learning to hunt the undead, and got revenge on his foster parents.

He continued to hunt the undead for a few years, but gradually became sympathetic to them, suddenly reversing courses and becoming a champion of undead rights after tracking a harmless ghost to his home and burning it down only to discover that he had just destroyed an orphanage.

After a few years of facing stiff resistance, he began to feel considerable ennui and decided to try to find meaning in life. He ultimately joined the Balancing Monks.