Class dips...

[Melcar]

Hellow fellow scribes...

I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing. Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue? I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.

Am I looking to conservatively on this?

Comment please!

[ArcturusV]

It... is a hard question.

Honestly though with Fighter/Rogue/Wizard I'd ask "... why not a bard?" as that's well... what a bard is.

But there's a thing where the Power Gaming and the Roleplaying doesn't really need to clash. After all, if my character is "I want to be the greatest swordsman in the world" why should I take Fighter 10, when I'm mechanically better as say Fighter 2, Paladin 4, Anointed Knight 4? Or going Barbarian 2, Ranger 2, Fighter 2, etc?

After all, I'm not that great a swordsman if I'm Fighter 10 comparatively.

[FrznTear]

Role-playing wise it only makes sense if the character spends the time to learn the new class.

You could start with a rogue, a guy who grew up on the streets and got really good at what he was doing. Eventually he makes enough money to go to university and learn about magic. Afterwards he get's bored and drops out and decides to join the military.

The problem with class dips in an RP heavy game is that you'd have to spend the time to learn the class.

I can imagine the outrage of a Wizard when a Barbarian he adventures with decides that he wants to do some fancy magic tricks.

"I've spent years practicing my art and this buffoon decides that he has clobbered enough foes to be 'experienced' enough to not only be able to control powers that I toiled to understand but also to be spontaneously literate?!"

[Spore]

Yes and no.

Dipping is a normal part of the game (just like a police officer can be interested in science and secretly drug dealing).

There are several kinds of dips.

If my rogue has learned that he has to practice his fighting more than his skills because he doesn't get the edge for sneaks anymore, this can certainly reflect in a character dipping Fighter 1 to get Twoweapon Feint. After all, it's in the best interest of the character that he is capable of pulling off his moves in fights to survive.

If a fighter is impressed by a wizard's power and has enough intelligence to pull Wizard 1, is is more finicky. Normally a Wizard (or Cleric) is a trained class, using most of their time to study magic (reflecting in an older starting age). If you dip in Wizard, you practically instantly know magic. Still, not every guy is talented in the same way and what might take academy students several years might be possible for someone in weeks or months (of rigorous training). But I am thinking more of a 12 hour practice day instead of an academy wizard with free time to experiment some lectures and free time.

There ARE munchkin dips. There is no doubt about that but a good roleplayer can find reasons for their dips. If a devoted Cleric of God xy thinks he needs a level of rogue (I will only say this once: rogues are NOT the same as thieves) and can justify this, I say go ahead with it. But if you dip from sorcerer into Paladin 2 (to get the CHA bonus to saves) I really REALLY want a good explanation on to why the celestial forces chose you as their champion.


Honestly though with Fighter/Rogue/Wizard I'd ask "... why not a bard?" as that's well... what a bard is.

It's quite simple really. It is also what people like me resent on the bard. The performance. If a bard wants to be effective he has to use his performance. And I want to be a jack of all trades but I do not like arts and performance very much.

[Wings of Peace]

They never bothered me one way or the other personally. I think in part it's because in my mind the characters don't call themselves rogues or fighters. A rogue could be a bandit, a pickpocket, or an assassin but the class itself to me is just a stat block. So when one of my players takes a dip in another class it doesn't break anything for me.

Most of the time my players have taken class dips it's usually clearly for mechanical reasons but since as I said earlier the classes don't go through my mind as more than stat blocks it doesn't bother me from a roleplaying perspective.

[Pluto!]

Most characters in most groups that I've played with take one class and play it straight through, maybe with one prestige class mixed in, or, in really out there moments, maybe even two base classes before that PrC.

In those settings, when I bring a dip-heavy build to the table (or one stacking 5 separate ACFs/sub levels/variants in one class), it is weird. That's not to say it's a power-grab, or that it's unjustifiable or even that it is rejected or ostracized by the other players; but it does raise a flag announcing that I'm probably playing a different game than the other players - one where character building and mechanics take a larger and more deliberate role than they do to the half of the players at the table who've chosen their character build because a gnome fighter sounded like a pretty cool dude.

[ArcturusV]

Also another thought that came to mind. Multiclassing being "in character" kind of depend on setting too. Take a setting like Faerun (Or Eberron perhaps). Really other than "It's better to take Wizard 5 than Wizard 4, Fighter 1" there's no real restriction. It's an open, enlightened world where information and training is presumed to flow pretty freely for the most part. Compare against a setting like Krynn or Rokugan, both of which are very caste based. You don't just "become a wizard" in Krynn, you have to go to the Tower of High Sorcery and pass a deadly test... after which, well, you don't risk life and limb to say "... eh. I'm done with magic. I'mma be a Fighter now". Most organizations are just, well, that. Base classes are less generic and more tied into things like the Knights of Solamnia, the only few faiths that actually work on Krynn, etc. Similarly with Rokugan it's a very caste based society. Samurai take the Samurai class because it's the only "honorable" thing for htem to take. PrC once in their clan's school (Because it's the only one they can get into), and maybe Multiclass out to Monk to "retire" and contemplate the spiritual. Fighters and Rogues are commoners and dishonorable in a way no true noble would countenance, etc. And due to the caste society even commoners can't really multiclass. There isn't free movement, free information, etc.

[skyth]

Really, there isn't anything wrong with taking dips (Even multiple dips). Fighter and Rogue are not in-game concepts. Dipping a level in Rogue means your character is stealthier and knows how to hit where it hurts if given the chance. Dipping a level in Fighter means that your character is better fighting now. Dipping a level or two in Paladin/Cleric means that the gods chose you for some reason (You may not even know why).

Effectively, they are building their own class.

As for the Fighter/Wizard/Rogue, that's an old archetype as Elves/Half-elves used to commonly multi-class into that from level 1 under previous editions.

Of course, the entire question really smells of the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Emperor Tippy]

Class mechanics should generally be totally divorced from class fluff (the exceptions being if/when classes have things like a Paladins Code of Conduct).

If a Psion want's to call himself a Sorcerer than he is free to do so. If a Factotum/Swasbuckler/Monk/Rogue/Swordsage wants to call himself an Assassin then that is also just fine and dandy.

Or you can have a Wizard 20 who decides to fluff his BAB as learning to wield all weapons (after all he can wield any weapon in the game pretty much as well as a straight class Fighter 5) and fluff his cross class Hide and Move Silently ranks along with a Martial Study feat for Assassin's Stance as thief/rogue training (after all he can have 11 ranks in those skills and the same Sneak Attack as a third level Rogue).

Fluff a one level Fighter dip as fighter training and a one level Rogue dip as Thief training and your Wizard 18/ Fighter 1/ Rogue 1 can potentially have all Rogue relevant skills maxed, have the same sneak attack as a 5th level Rogue, have the same BAB as a 10th level Fighter (along with a Fighter bonus feat), and still cast as an 18th level wizard.

[Melcar]

Personally, I have no problem that a wizard could want to lean to use all melee weapons, and have no problem with dual classing, but the 1 level of each I, usually feel, is a search for power-mechanics and not RP.

We have a player in my group who at level 8 have 5 different classes. I believe its 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon... and I asked him why he had the classes he had. Why not just figther 4/wiz 4... he said he needed to lean how to use armor and cast spells, while fighting in melee... So therefor spell sword. Free weapon focus from elf paragon...

I personaly feel this is a mechanics choise... but then again I look at classes more as education and not just as stat blocks...

[SciChronic]

Dipping can easily fit a roleplaying perspective. When you are trying to create a themed build, dips are the de facto way to see them come to life, pulling class features that would assist that theme.

If i wanted to create a martial artist thief, rogue/scout, swordsage and a 2 level dip into monk for the Decisive Strike and Invisible Fist make a lot of sense.

dips also make it possible to themed builds to be viable outside of just roleplay. Your character can be as flavorful as you want, but when the flavor doesn't match the actual results, there's a problem.

[ShurikVch]

Questions to everyone: when dip stops to be just a dip? 2 levels? 3 levels? What if whole class have only 3 levels? Also, if creature's ECL is above it's class level, does it mean it's only class is a dip?


Honestly though with Fighter/Rogue/Wizard I'd ask "... why not a bard?" as that's well... what a bard is.
Nale was a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer...

[MrNobody]

Personally i'm not against level dips... dealing with the theory, it's fun to combine levels in a wide range of classes and PrC to obtain strange ad powerful PC. And webcomics show us that even the smallest level-dip can provide a whole amount of fun (Senor Vorpal Kickass'o (http://www.goblinscomic.org/09022005/))

Practically, though, in my games i do my best to avoid level-dip. Not simple multiclassing, but that attitude of jumping from a class to an other. Both as a DM and as a player it makes me feel uncomfortable since i think it surrounds the PC (or NPC) with incoherence. It makes me feel like the character was saying: "ok, i'll go to college and study economy this year, then i'll quit and take few american litterature exams. Then maybe i'll try an acting school, but only for a few month, becasue i have to train my almost non-existent judo skill for the next Olympics".
This is an exaggeration, but it makes the idea.

When "judging" this i try to look at the whole classes. A 3 level PrC is not a level dip, it's completing a small path. Taking 3 level in the True necromancer PrC (14 level class) it's level dip.
If i have to multiclass, i usually do it to obtain a PrC i'll complete before taking levels any other class.
If i want my pc to do different thing i directly choose class that can do that (combat+spell = duskblade; stealth + spell = spellthief) or go for bard or factotum.

[Lucid]

Personally, I have no problem that a wizard could want to lean to use all melee weapons, and have no problem with dual classing, but the 1 level of each I, usually feel, is a search for power-mechanics and not RP.

We have a player in my group who at level 8 have 5 different classes. I believe its 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon... and I asked him why he had the classes he had. Why not just figther 4/wiz 4... he said he needed to lean how to use armor and cast spells, while fighting in melee... So therefor spell sword. Free weapon focus from elf paragon...

I personaly feel this is a mechanics choise... but then again I look at classes as education and not just as stat blocks... Bolded for emphasis.
So a fighter 4/wiz 4 would have had martial training and an arcane education.
While the other build is a warrior with an interest in arcane magic, so he studies wizardry and looks for a way to combine his different abilities.

It might be a mechanical choice, but it makes a lot more sense in character imo.

Another example, I've played a character starting at 5th level, who was a warrior with an interest in different fighting styles and weapons. Straight Fighter 5 would have been terrible at representing this concept, being at best merely and expert with a single weapon. Instead I decided he was someone who had travelled the world to learn from others. The build was Exoticist Fighter 2/Spirit Lion Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Warblade 1, with the plan to later go into Exotic Weapon Master and Bloodstorm Blade.
Mechanics and RP fit together nicely, but I was accused of making a kitchensink character.:smallannoyed:

I see classes as metagame constructs, and most combinations aren't that hard to explain in rp. Dips allow you to fine-tune your character to have the skillset you want for your concept.

[ArcturusV]

Even if it's "As education", you have to kind of think of it in terms of evolution of concept. As I said, in a Caste Based society, single classing/limited multiclassing may may sense.

But presume you're not in a world like that.

You mention the example Spellsword as this electic figure who can't make up their mind and is constantly shifting gears.

However you can also mark it out like this: 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon

The character in question wants to blend melee combat and magic into a singular act, draw by the art of the blade and the art of magic at the same time. Knowing that the physical nature of the body needs to be built up first while he is young, and still can mold his body and reach his physical peek he trains with the blade and armor originally, preparing himself for the rigors and shocks of melee combat. Once he is certain of his skills he seeks to start to learn how to add magic to his style, finishing his aborted studies that had been pushed aside to focus on being a physical warrior. He adds to his spellbook, experiments, and gains mystical power until he is as confident in his spells as he feels with his blades. Now he tries to blend it together, and takes Spellsword, learning the basics of trying to blend blade and arcane. But the path doesn't fit his desired style, as he wants more finesse and artistry. So his studies lean towards the swiftblade, speed and magic, striking fast and hard. Tapping into his natural grace to build on it, he unleashes his power as a elf, embracing his racial history as Fighter/Mages and the wisdom of his ancestors.

It all flows, it makes sense. It's part of an evolution. It's not "I went to Fighter's Camp '86, then took an associate's degree at hogwarts".

[Sith_Happens]

We have a player in my group who at level 8 have 5 different classes. I believe its 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon... and I asked him why he had the classes he had. Why not just figther 4/wiz 4... he said he needed to lean how to use armor and cast spells, while fighting in melee... So therefor spell sword. Free weapon focus from elf paragon...

See, that combination to me makes perfectly sense to me RP/fluff-wise. You said yourself that his idea is for a character that uses magic while fighting in melee and wearing armor.

Fighter 1 is "I can fight in melee and wear armor."
Wizard 3 is "I can use magic."
Spellsword 1 turns "I can wear armor" and "I can use magic" into "I can use magic while wearing armor."
Swiftblade (which I assume is what he's mostly going to be taking from this point forward) is a specific style of using magic and melee together.

Elf Paragon is the only class that doesn't directly relate to the others, but racial paragon classes are probably the most generic classes in the game fluff-wise. They literally boil down to "I am very [race]."


I personaly feel this is a mechanics choise... but then again I look at classes more as education and not just as stat blocks...

This is where you'll find a difference of opinion with most of the Playground. The typical view around here is that class levels (and feats, and skill ranks, and...) are the means to describing your character's training rather than the end result of it.


Nale was a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer...

And that worked so well for him.

[Melcar]

The problems I have if why stop at level 1 paragon. If you are the best of your race, I feel you should own up to that and take all 3 levels.

With monk... You would have to join a cloister... And why do you stop your monastic training at level 2. Shoulin monk dont just let you walk in, and then leave after you lean the De Mak!

[Kristinn]

Effectively, they are building their own class.


Dipping can easily fit a roleplaying perspective. When you are trying to create a themed build, dips are the de facto way to see them come to life, pulling class features that would assist that theme.

These two points I think are the answer you need.

D&D is a game, with many elements. Trying to do well in the face of a challenge is one of those elements. If your players get satisfaction and enjoyment out of constructing competent characters, I really don't see that being a problem. After all, dips is the only tool that allows a melee character to diversify and feel unique.

If you don't allow generous multiclassing, every melee character would be a Fighter or Barbarian with Shock Trooper/Leap Jump. If you allow them to diversify, one of them can be a Scout/Ranger/Lion Totem Barbarian who pounces with skirmish damage. One can be a Fighter/Cleric with Zen Archery who buffs and shoots competently with a bow. One can be a Barbarian/Monk/Fist of the Forest ferocious hand-to-hand beast.

Bottom line: dips encourage customization, creativity in character creation, and engaging in your character. And don't worry, no dip build will be more powerfull than Wizard 20 or Druid 20 anyway.

[Sith_Happens]

The problems I have if why stop at level 1 paragon. If you are the best of your race, I feel you should own up to that and take all 3 levels.

You have it backwards. Elf Paragon 3's are the best at being Elves, Elf Paragon 1's are just better than average at being Elves. And that's okay.:smallsmile:


With monk... You would have to join a cloister... And why do you stop your monastic training at level 2. Shoulin monk dont just let you walk in, and then leave after you lean the De Mak!

Since when does a Monk have to actually be trained in a monastery? What happened to the man honing his body and mind alone in the mountains with just the shirt on his back and a weathered kung fu manual?

[ArcturusV]

What's Monk 2 got to do with Shaolin Cloistered Contemplatives?

This is a valid question. Even in DnD fiction, monks aren't necessarily members of some order. For example, Danica in the Cleric Quintet books from Forgotten Realms. A monk who is a monk by dint of "... a old man taught me a few tricks then I trained myself.".

Self-Taught is a dirt common, can't walk 30 yards without running into one of them, idea in fantasy. Heroes who are what they are just because they decided to be it and worked on it by themselves.

Granted, SOME like Wizard should have some "prep work". Like someone who is thinking of multiclassing into Wizard should buy a spellbook before hand, provide a little info saying he's experimenting and dabbling, etc, be interested in collecting magic scrolls the party finds as loot, etc. Clerics and Paladins don't really have that problem so much because divine intervention is literally part of their class, and it's entirely likely that some god just goes "Bam... you're a Paladin now, don't **** it up."

[limejuicepowder]

With monk... You would have to join a cloister... And why do you stop your monastic training at level 2. Shoulin monk dont just let you walk in, and then leave after you lean the De Mak!

...Why not? Are they going to bodily restrain the character from leaving, since their training isn't "complete"? I would think that a monastery would of course reject tourists (someone who shows up asking about a specific technique, and only wants to learn some very small subset of the martial art), but if someone comes in with a genuine interest in the art, and they showed the talent, they would accept them. Later, it's perfectly reasonable for the character to have a change of heart, or have to leave for some other reason.

This is actually reflected somewhat in the alignment/class restrictions of the monk: changing from lawful, or gaining a level in most classes, prevents you from leveling monk again.

[Lucid]

The problems I have if why stop at level 1 paragon. If you are the best of your race, I feel you should own up to that and take all 3 levels.

With monk... You would have to join a cloister... And why do you spot your monastic training at level 2. Shoulin monk dont just let you walk in, and then leave after you lean the De Mak! Well of course they leave the monastery, how else are they going to go on and adventure?:smalltongue:

I think it depends on disconnecting the fluff from the mechanics.
Looking at what Monk 2 gets: Unarmed Strike, a couple of bonus feats representing different fighting styles, flurry of blows, wisdom to AC and Evasion.

Now this can represent an ascetic character who was trained in a monastery whose willpower helps him evade blows. But he could also be a boxer or a wrestler. Or a guy that grew up fighting for survival on the streets, and awareness of his surroundings helps him evade blows.

[yougi]

Class mechanics should generally be totally divorced from class fluff (the exceptions being if/when classes have things like a Paladins Code of Conduct). *snip*

To go more in depth into what (I think) Tippy said: classes are a metagame construct, which does not exist in the game world. My most recent character is a Swordsage/Swashbuckler/Bard/JPM/Sublime Chord, but when asked what he does, he calls himself a "Wardancer".

To me, the classes we find in our books are used to create individual classes which our characters take: in this case, the Wardancer class gains maneuvers at 1st level (when he takes the Swordsage level), then Weapon Finesse at 2nd level (when he enters Swashbuckler), then casting and music at 3rd (Bard), then the ability to channel arcane energy into strikes at 7th level (when the build gets the first level of JPM). Yes, the character is a Swordsage 1/Swashbuckler 1/Bard 5/JPM 3/Sublime Chord 1 on paper, but in the game world, he perceives himself as a mid-level Wardancer, and not as a multiclassed mess.

[prufock]

Is it that time of the month again already?


I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing.
They're awesome. They make it easier to build a character that matches your concept AND they make your character better at what he should be good at.


Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue?
Of course it does. You're sneaky, able to cast a few minor spells, and are proficient with wielding weapons and armor. How deos that not make sense?

Does it make any sense that I am a psychologist and musician and statistician?


I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.
False dichotomy. Even if it was true, so what?


Role-playing wise it only makes sense if the character spends the time to learn the new class.
...
I can imagine the outrage of a Wizard when a Barbarian he adventures with decides that he wants to do some fancy magic tricks.
I think it's in the DMG that it states if you multiclass it's assumed you were taking some of your down time to learn this all along. There's no real conflict here, unless you act out all of your down time.


They never bothered me one way or the other personally. I think in part it's because in my mind the characters don't call themselves rogues or fighters
Indeed. I played a bard/marshal who used motivational speaking as his bardic music. One of the other players suggested I was a bard and I looked at him funny. Bards are musicians and actors and storytellers who entertain for money.


We have a player in my group who at level 8 have 5 different classes. I believe its 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon... and I asked him why he had the classes he had. Why not just figther 4/wiz 4... he said he needed to lean how to use armor and cast spells, while fighting in melee... So therefor spell sword. Free weapon focus from elf paragon...
First, your level count adds up to 9, not 8.
Second, uh, okay? He wanted to learn how to use armor and cast spells. That's what the classes are there for. There's no conflict there between "mechanic" and "role-playing" decision. Both the character and the player wanted to learn a skill, so a class was chosen that allowed them to do that.

Classes are representations of what your character can do.

My beef is the other way around: why did the designers seem to go out of their way to make multiclassing so inconvenient. It's an effective, useful, fun way to build characters, why make it so darn difficult. This goes double for prestige classes with crappy requirements.

[AlltheBooks]

D&D can be played many different ways from many different perspectives in many different styles.

Limiting yourself and others in their choices because of an opinion (a limited one at that) is, limiting.

Why shackle your imagination to the weight of immutable fluff. Silly. Besides I've been gaming for 20 yrs now, if I prescribed to such thinking I would have seen every character under the sun. My players would have seen NPC clone after clone. Boring.

On a negative note, most who claim "powergaming not roleplaying" often have low system knowledge and can't wrap their minds around competency and rich character. That is their limitations and they should keep those shackles to themselves.

[anacalgion]

Just to throw out another point, it's really no fun to build a character when you love the concept but the class that fits that is weak. I'd rather multiclass and contribute to the party than be single classed and have to sit out encounters. I recently played a gestalt campaign as a Bard/Sublime Chord//Fighter/Monk/Umbral Disciple. I ended up with a stealthy fighter with great defenses and some fun shadow related spells. Could I have gone shadowdancer? Well sure, but then I'd be both ineffectual and lose some of the character aspects that I liked.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"Are dips objectionable" is really hiding two more important questions: what optimization level are we using? and are classes metagame constructs?

The first is pretty obvious, but the second question is the one that trips people up. "Wizard 1/Fighter 1/Rogue 1" looks pretty odd if wizards, fighters, and rogues are well-defined in-game castes. On the other hand, if we look at what the character can actually do-- a sort of generalist adventurer type, or perhaps a sneaky dude with a few spells to go with the dagger up his sleeve-- it looks a lot more normal.

Personally, as long as the player isn't going to optimize or gimp themselves too far away from the rest of the party, I could care less what you have written down in the "class" section on your character sheet.

[Amphetryon]

Hellow fellow scribes...

I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing. Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue? I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.

Am I looking to conservatively on this?

Comment please!

Which one of these seems better from a "power gaming perspective" to you: Druid 20 with Natural Spell, or Monk 2/Fighter 2/Swashbuckler 3/Drunken Master 3/Kensai 4/Fist of the Forest 3/Paragnostic Initiate 3?

[Flickerdart]

Let's take a character concept, as an example. She is a calm and collected swordswoman of some renown, and is known as a terror to the orcs that frequently raid the lands of her people. Her rivals and enemies often scoff at her for not being a true warrior, however, as she has been suspected to turn the tide of her fights with supernatural powers. Indeed, she is a very spiritual person who spends much time in quiet contemplation.

Is this character a ranger with Favored Enemy (Orcs) who uses spells like curse of impending blades? Is she a paladin who uses Smite Evil and self-buffs? Is she a swordsage with Desert Wind maneuvers? Is she a cleric, using Intuitive Attack to guide her blows? Or a psychic warrior?

If these different classes are already difficult to distinguish when applied to the same concept, why is multiclassing among them such a big deal? When a character picks between continuing fighter or dipping barbarian, he doesn't think in-character "oh, this will let me make more attacks on a charge!" Instead, the class pick represents how this warrior became better in combat by reflecting on his experiences.

[Zombulian]

Hellow fellow scribes...

I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing. Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue? I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.

Am I looking to conservatively on this?

Comment please!

I think you're being a little conservative, yes. Even as a powergamer myself, the builds I do are mostly thematic based. If I need to take other classes and PrC's to make that thematic work more smoothly, so be it.

[Juntao112]

Hellow fellow scribes...

I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing. Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue? I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.

Am I looking to conservatively on this?

Comment please!

Elminster.

[Chronos]

Either your multiclassing fits some consistent theme, or it doesn't. If you've got 10 levels of fighter and 1 of wizard, or vice-versa, that doesn't make much sense in-character, but then again, it also doesn't do much for you: You'd probably be better off just dropping the dip and taking more of your primary class.

On the other hand, if it does fit a theme, such as a mix of fighter, ranger, and barbarian, it might well make you more powerful, but it also makes sense in-character: You're a warrior who's looking to learn a wide variety of combat techniques, and so you're studying the ways of trained soldiers, savages, and skilled woodsmen alike. That fits just fine in a story, especially for a character who travels a lot and sees the world (which describes many adventurers).

[Forrestfire]

Either your multiclassing fits some consistent theme, or it doesn't. If you've got 10 levels of fighter and 1 of wizard, or vice-versa, that doesn't make much sense in-character, but then again, it also doesn't do much for you: You'd probably be better off just dropping the dip and taking more of your primary class.

Sure it does. It's a warrior-type who picked up a few tricks along the way.

[Con_Brio1993]

It only doesn't make sense if you think of classes as job descriptions. Which doesn't need to be the case all the time.

[Vhaidara]

I feel they're okay in most situations when it isn't blatant powergaming.

Note: examples are from campaigns I am in

Example of not okay:
Level 9 Crusader (unarmed homebrew variant with a homebrew race) considered taking a level in Sorcerer because his CHA is high and he wanted Enlarge Person. We talked him out of it because it makes absolutely no sense for his character (and was counter productive because we have a buff focused runesmith in the group).

Example of okay:
Shifter Barbarian 1/Fighter 2 (at start of campaign). He is doing a build around both Frenzied Berserker and a number of shifter feats, so he wanted the 2 fighter dip for feats. He fluffed it as "I am a shifted, so my savage combat style was more natural, but I joined the army/city guard for a time (2 fighter 2) before deciding that it simply wasn't the life for me (too chaotic to fit in with the organization and discipline).


Elminster.


Also, I second this. Fighter 1, Rogue 2, Cleric 3, Wizard 24, Archmage 5 ftw all day erry day.

[erikun]

This is kind of difficult to answer, because there are several ways to look at it. On the one hand, classes could represent training and specific courses of study, and so such repeated dipping does not make sense beyond a character visiting different institutions and learning new skills entirely. On the other hand, classes could represent simply different skillsets, and so the only difference between taking a level in Fighter and a level in Ranger are the skills and combat abilities acquired.

To make it more difficult, the system is rather bad at distinguishing the two. Paladins, Druids, and even Wizards are classes that seem like structures to organizations and learned trades, while classes like the Fighter or Rogue are far more general and something that anyone on the street could (literally) learn. Even Paladins, Druids, and Wizards can still learn (and level) all on their own, making it somewhat difficult to assume that they require some sort of institution to become.

And to make it worse, the whole system just makes it difficult for characters to behave outside of their "class" without dips and multiclassing. Fighters can't sneak effectively without picking up levels in Rogue. Wizards can't free use magic items without Bard levels. Clerics don't swim well without another class. And you can forget about your Rogue learning a minor light spell without some spellcasting dip.

[Melcar]

I do thank you for all you very wel written comments...

Problem is, I do see classes representing castes, or lines of education and job descriptions most of the time. When saying wizard, you have a very intelligent guy, who spends most of his free time (when not sleeping, eating & craping) studying "the art". Its not easy, and hard work, therefore in not especially naturally talented/gifted with dragon/fey legacies (sorcerer) on would just not simply happen accros magical capabilities...

Some of you mention Elminster, yes who have class dipped, and were a character of mine to divuldge himself into story like Ed of the Greenwood have done with the lost prince of Athalantar, then I would allow it.

My big problem is when there is no RP explanation for shifting interest and abilities... But not just by saying. That one class ability grants me spells... or that gives me my charisma bonus to saves or it gives me improved evation... that does not sit well with me. Somehow that, is not enough for me, when I have a tendency to look at things as castes.

[Metahuman1]

Personally, I have no problem that a wizard could want to lean to use all melee weapons, and have no problem with dual classing, but the 1 level of each I, usually feel, is a search for power-mechanics and not RP.

We have a player in my group who at level 8 have 5 different classes. I believe its 1 fighter, 3 wizard, 1 spell sword, 3 swiftblade, 1 elven paragon... and I asked him why he had the classes he had. Why not just figther 4/wiz 4... he said he needed to lean how to use armor and cast spells, while fighting in melee... So therefor spell sword. Free weapon focus from elf paragon...

I personaly feel this is a mechanics choise... but then again I look at classes more as education and not just as stat blocks...

Sometimes you NEED the class dipping to reflect a concept.

An effective TWF character, for example, might well need Ranger and a dip of scout for the skirmish bonus damage, a dip of Barbarian for Pounce and Cloistered cleric for Travel Devotion/Knowledge Devotion and Luck Devotion to improve normal mobility and ability to hit and damage, and a dip of Swordsage for some additional maneuvers for when Charge in is not the solution that's gonna keep you from dieing.

That was a minimum of 5 classes, at least 2 of which have no business being more then a 1 level dip, and yet, the end result is,

"I have a fast mobile warrior who can make blindingly swift attacks after closing with and enemy and then get away form them before they have a chance to mount a counter offensive, and hurts them by knowing how to hit them were it hurts and having a few tricks up his sleeve."

Or let's say I wanted to make a character who runs on nothing but there own force of will, and by virtue of that alone comes out on top.

I'd very likely end up dipping all over the place to get mystic/semi mystic powers to throw around, like sword sage and psi-warrior, and to get my Cha mod to as many things as possible and have them stacked as many times as I can to create that badass image of "No matter what you throw at my, I will never stop coming by sheer force of determination and awesomeness."

And generally, Classes should be considered Metagame constructs, and taking dips should not be held against the player.

[Rubik]

Hellow fellow scribes...

I was thinking what the general opinion is on class dips when playing. Does it make any role-playing sense to be 1 fighter, 1 wizard 1 rogue? I personally dont like it, and I think often the class dips are taken from a power gaming perspective and not from an role-playing perspective.

Am I looking to conservatively on this?

Comment please!I build to suit a theme, and often, individual classes are far, far too restrictive in what they grant to give me what I want my character able to do, fluff-wise or otherwise. I build characters, not chess pieces, and real people are much more complex than any in-game construct could possibly be. The more I have to work with, the more complex my characters can be without stretching credulity.

I'm a writer, and any good writer knows that real people are nuanced and quite complicated. We have widely varying interests and abilities, even for those of us who are relatively narrow-minded.

And classes like Fighter are just too limited to turn into something interesting. They don't even have access to Knowledge skills, which they need to do the job they're supposed to be good at, and no skill points or reason to focus on Int in order to make them work even if they did.

Thus, dipping to ensure that the characters are what they need to be in order to be at least somewhat plausible.

[prufock]

Problem is, I do see classes representing castes, or lines of education and job descriptions most of the time. When saying wizard, you have a very intelligent guy, who spends most of his free time (when not sleeping, eating & craping) studying "the art". Its not easy, and hard work, therefore in not especially naturally talented/gifted with dragon/fey legacies (sorcerer) on would just not simply happen accros magical capabilities...
People change jobs all the time. While their job descriptions might change, they don't magically lose the skills they developed in their previous employment. So a wizard 7/barbarian 1 just changes jobs. I don't see a problem with that.


My big problem is when there is no RP explanation for shifting interest and abilities... But not just by saying. That one class ability grants me spells... or that gives me my charisma bonus to saves or it gives me improved evation... that does not sit well with me. Somehow that, is not enough for me, when I have a tendency to look at things as castes.
Why? "I would like to get better at X, therefore I train to do X" is reason enough. It's really no different than taking a feat, or putting ranks into a skill you haven't used before, or even gaining class features of the class you're in when you've shown no RP reason to have learned them. A monk gains slow fall at level 4 whether or not he has actually practiced it.

They are just game constructs to define what your character can do.

[Zombulian]

I do thank you for all you very wel written comments...

Problem is, I do see classes representing castes, or lines of education and job descriptions most of the time. When saying wizard, you have a very intelligent guy, who spends most of his free time (when not sleeping, eating & craping) studying "the art". Its not easy, and hard work, therefore in not especially naturally talented/gifted with dragon/fey legacies (sorcerer) on would just not simply happen accros magical capabilities...

Some of you mention Elminster, yes who have class dipped, and were a character of mine to divuldge himself into story like Ed of the Greenwood have done with the lost prince of Athalantar, then I would allow it.

My big problem is when there is no RP explanation for shifting interest and abilities... But not just by saying. That one class ability grants me spells... or that gives me my charisma bonus to saves or it gives me improved evation... that does not sit well with me. Somehow that, is not enough for me, when I have a tendency to look at things as castes.

Well see the issue that is presented here is that you are actually explaining to us that you are too stuck in your ways to see a class as something other than a caste, and therefore cannot abide by the RP of multiclassing.

[Vhaidara]

I usually prefer to build to a theme as well, and I really dislike dips (and honestly I'm not a fan of prestige). I prefer to talk to my DM and homebrew/variant the class into effectiveness without needing to dip or prestige)

My current characters:
Tiefling (slightly modified for 0LA) Warlock (Using Grod the Giant's tweaks) 10 who will be to Warlock 20.

Gnome Bard 5 who is building into Seeker of the Song (the build up to primal music started at level 4, and SotS requires level 10 or entry)

Warforged Gladiator, which is a Fighter variant using some of Grod the Giant's tweaks, along with trading all armor/shield proficiency for skirmish and scout fast movement and trading my weapon proficiencies for a specialized pair of weapons (finessable scimitar/slashing rapier and "hand" crossbow [actually replacing a lost hand] dual wield) that I can take feats like Weapon Focus with as a pair (so the tree applies to both of them, halving my required feats).

The amount of homebrew needed to make the last one even possible was considerable, but no one in the group objects because I still am actually our secondary melee damager.

[Emperor Tippy]

Want to make an unarmored melee character? Then a one level Decisive Strike Martial Monk dip is a great gain.

Factotum 1/ Decisive Strike Martial Monk 1/ Swashbuckler 3/ Swordsage 1/ Warblade 14

Grab Kung Fu Genius and you get Int to AC.
Use Martial Monk to grab Spring Attack without needing the pre-requisites.
Swasbuckler 3 gives Int to Damage.

Hang out in a Shadow Hand stance and take Shadowblade to pick up Dex to damage as well (for +Str, +Dex, +Int).

Replace Swordsage with Shiba Protector if you can and you can also add Wis to attack and damage rolls.

What's the end result of all of this? Something like Jack Sparrow. A highly mobile, decently skilled, unarmored melee combatant.

Could the same basic idea be done more effectively in other ways? Sure. But this way gets you 9th level Warblade maneuvers and a BAB of +17/+12/+7/+2 (+19/+14/+9/+4 with fractional AB) along with all skills as class skills (use with Able Learner if you are a human), Int to AC, decent saves, and decent damage.

[Sith_Happens]

Well see the issue that is presented here is that you are actually explaining to us that you are too stuck in your ways to see a class as something other than a caste, and therefore cannot abide by the RP of multiclassing.

No need to be harsh.

[Wings of Peace]

No need to be harsh.

I didn't think it was that harsh. He's basically saying "In that case the problem is you." which doesn't seem wrong. We can all talk about classes as abstract concepts but if the op doesn't view them that way then there isn't much to say on the matter that isn't simply us saying "We get where you're coming from but have you considered it this way?"

[lsfreak]

Several people have touched on something I want to make more explicit: Roleplaying something and lacking the mechanical means to do what you're roleplaying is failing to roleplay well. If you are claiming to roleplay a paladin who is a master swordsman, but your build is Paladin 10, you aren't a master swordsman. You've failed just as much as someone who is claiming to be a paladin but they find loopholes to get out of commitments, regularly ignore the suffering of strangers, and are constantly trying to murder people just because someone dings Evil. A cleric 3/church inquisitor 1/crusader 1/ordained champion 2/sacred exorcist 1/ruby knight vindicator 2 is better roleplay, because you are mechanically capable of doing what you roleplay you are capable of doing. That you are 10th level with six different classes is irrelevant.

[Metahuman1]

Several people have touched on something I want to make more explicit: Roleplaying something and lacking the mechanical means to do what you're roleplaying is failing to roleplay well. If you are claiming to roleplay a paladin who is a master swordsman, but your build is Paladin 10, you aren't a master swordsman. You've failed just as much as someone who is claiming to be a paladin but they find loopholes to get out of commitments, regularly ignore the suffering of strangers, and are constantly trying to murder people just because someone dings Evil. A cleric 3/church inquisitor 1/crusader 1/ordained champion 2/sacred exorcist 1/ruby knight vindicator 2 is better roleplay, because you are mechanically capable of doing what you roleplay you are capable of doing. That you are 10th level with six different classes is irrelevant.

Hit the nail on the head there.

[Zombulian]

Several people have touched on something I want to make more explicit: Roleplaying something and lacking the mechanical means to do what you're roleplaying is failing to roleplay well. If you are claiming to roleplay a paladin who is a master swordsman, but your build is Paladin 10, you aren't a master swordsman. You've failed just as much as someone who is claiming to be a paladin but they find loopholes to get out of commitments, regularly ignore the suffering of strangers, and are constantly trying to murder people just because someone dings Evil. A cleric 3/church inquisitor 1/crusader 1/ordained champion 2/sacred exorcist 1/ruby knight vindicator 2 is better roleplay, because you are mechanically capable of doing what you roleplay you are capable of doing. That you are 10th level with six different classes is irrelevant.

Thank you.

The fact that OP expressed his confusion at his player playing a real gish build as opposed to a Fighter 4/Wizard 4 sort of demonstrated the lack of system knowledge that comes with his opinion. Melcar I truly do not mean to be offensive by that, but to have a valid opinion on this topic I think requires a little more knowledge on how the game works.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Roleplaying something and lacking the mechanical means to do what you're roleplaying is failing to roleplay well.
Entirely, entirely agreed.

[Zombulian]

I do believe that The Giant actually had a fairly well made point on this very subject. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

[Urpriest]

Problem is, I do see classes representing castes, or lines of education and job descriptions most of the time.

The thing is, you're straightforwardly wrong about that.

First of all, the D&D classes simply aren't the sorts of castes/lines of education/job description that appear in current campaigns. The sorts of plots DMs use are tied to what fiction they enjoy, and people these days don't enjoy fantasy fiction that sticks to the tropes as heavily as dividing the world into the D&D classes. Any home-made campaign setting created today simply won't have those roles in its societies except insofar as the rules force them into place (or the DM is lazy in world-building).

More importantly, though, what something in D&D represents is determined by what it does in the game. A well-designed game is one where the mechanics of your choices guide your roleplay. Think of any well-regarded indie game, and you'll see the same trend: people act the way they do because the mechanics subtly guide them to do so. If the game mechanics aren't pushing you in the same direction as you want to roleplay, then you have to consciously metagame to bring things back, and that breaks immersion. The best way to play any given game (barring experiments) is to play it the way the game wants to be played.

Let me give you an example: let's think about your Wizard 4/Fighter 4. His spells are two levels below those of a Wizard 8. Not only will most of his enemies succeed at saves against them, but many will have immunities since his tricks will be behind the level curve. Because of this, casting spells will rarely be useful, and unless he intentionally metagames, he'll stop using them. So our "magical swordsman" doesn't cast any spells. He's behind on BAB too, and he'll only get farther behind if he continues in the same progression, so eventually hitting things with a sword is also going to cease being useful (especially since he won't be a high enough level Wizard for the nicer buffs).

By contrast, let's think about the Fighter 1/Wizard 3/Spellsword 1/Swiftblade 3/Elven Paragon 1 (by the way, in that order I'm almost positive it isn't legal, but I'm assuming you're quoting from memory). That character, by the way, isn't just a "magical swordsman", they're a swiftblade. If you want to play a swiftblade (the concept, not the class), you have to have some levels in Swiftblade of course, but beyond that some levels in Fighter help, and since Swiftblade can't fill all of your levels you need other "magical swordsman" classes to fill the rest of the build if you're going to stick to theme.

(Mechanically, by the way, Fighter levels grant you the generic melee character chassis, and generic melee character feats. They incentivize you to do melee character stuff. They also incentivize you to dip, since the class is so modular and it only makes sense to take more levels if you need the feats. Essentially, the designers made Fighter intentionally bland for the purpose of dipping.)

Stick to what the classes tell you to do, and you get a character that incentivizes you to fight in melee sometimes and cast spells other times, one that incentivizes you to keep Haste on as often as possible (because swiftblade, is part of the character concept, not just another magical swordsman: not due to its printed fluff, but because it incentivizes you to live up the archetype).

Now that said, there is some merit to the idea that some things are "careers" or "castes" that a character can be stuck in. But that's only true when the mechanics back it up.

For example, casting totally does require dedication to master. If you aren't advancing casting on most levels of your build, then your casting isn't just going to be weak, it's going to do nothing. It's not like a Rogue, who can add their sneak attack even if it's lower than normal; if your opponent passes their save or is immune to your spell, nothing happens.

But the thing is, what the mechanics tell you is that casting itself requires dedication, not the Wizard class. This is because PrCs advance casting. If you take a single level of Spellsword, that level advances your casting. You aren't "taking a break" from being a Wizard, the fact that you advance casting means that you are still dedicatedly studying casting. That's what that rule represents. By contrast, since the second level of Spellsword doesn't advance casting, on that level you are not studying dedicatedly. So if your character is a dedicated student of magic, that level does not represent them.

By contrast, classes like Warblade that compensate you for multiclassing by speeding up your progression clearly represent abilities that require less dedication to a "caste". Fighter, a class designed to be dipped, and Monk, a class designed to be dipped and never returned to (remember the Monk multiclassing rules) both give abilities that can be relevant without further study and dedication. That's just how the classes work.

You certainly can choose to metagame your way through and ignore what the classes tell you about what they represent, but there's no reason to. The whole reason you or anyone else plays 3.5 D&D in 2013 is because of the intricate mechanics, because their incentive system creates the right sort of roleplay. If they didn't, you would have moved on to another system years ago.

[erikun]

Several people have touched on something I want to make more explicit: Roleplaying something and lacking the mechanical means to do what you're roleplaying is failing to roleplay well. If you are claiming to roleplay a paladin who is a master swordsman, but your build is Paladin 10, you aren't a master swordsman. You've failed just as much as someone who is claiming to be a paladin but they find loopholes to get out of commitments, regularly ignore the suffering of strangers, and are constantly trying to murder people just because someone dings Evil. A cleric 3/church inquisitor 1/crusader 1/ordained champion 2/sacred exorcist 1/ruby knight vindicator 2 is better roleplay, because you are mechanically capable of doing what you roleplay you are capable of doing. That you are 10th level with six different classes is irrelevant.
This. Exactly everything mentioned here.

I play roleplaying games for the purpose of roleplaying. The system getting in the way of my roleplaying is a problem with the system. If I am twisting the system in order to allow myself to roleplay properly, then I am working at fixing an inherent fault in the system. I'm not abusing the system; I'm beating it into a properly useable form.

[ArcturusV]

Paladins, Druids, and even Wizards are classes that seem like structures to organizations and learned trades,

Not that I disagreed with your point in general, but that part kinda stuck on me. Because I hear it parroted quite a bit. The idea that Paladins have to go to Paladin School and Graduate with Paladin Honors, swearing fealty to King and Church, etc.

When the actual bit of the background to the class isn't like that at all. It's defined as: "No one ever chooses to be a paladin. Becoming a paladin is answering a call, accepting once's destiny. No one, no matter how diligent, can become a paladin through practice. The nature is either within one or not, and it is not possible to gain the paladin's nature by any act of will."

Granted, yes, it mentions that Paladins recognize one another as comrades regardless of their culture/homelands they hail from, united in cause and purpose, though doesn't mention there being some Paladin's Guild Local 437 that you all belong to (Though Druids do have a hint of that).

I mention this because, well, I love Paladin fluff. Even if the crunch on it needs work. The idea of a person who answers a divine calling to do something that is likely to leave them a smoldering husk more often than a shining beacon of grace and righteousness (Because you are driven into a nearly suicidal quest against Evil that will kill you, or you'll ascend to power rapidly as you crush the darkness).

Granted even I tend to "dip" my Paladins a bit, though mechanically if you take Paladin you want to keep taking Paladin since it all scales off Paladin Levels for everything and I can't recall any PrCs that really say "Count this as Paladin as well for your Paladin abilities", mostly just giving you another pool of the abilities that only count the PrC itself. But doing things like Fighter 1/Paladin 4/Anointed Knight X, focusing more on the blade and such than the spell slinging and miracle popping.

Love your post there Ur-Priest.

[UserShadow7989]

It's been stated before, but dipping does not immediately mean powergaming. The fact of the matter is that most of the classes in the game are either incapable of supporting a wide variety of concepts, or incapable of supporting those concepts well.

I can even argue that forcing a player to stick to a single class or never dip is itself a crunch-focused perspective. It means the person's character can only ever be or do what that one class is, and must paint within those lines.

Imagine going to an art class and only ever being allowed to paint in children's coloring books with preselected colors. You want to paint a landscape? Too bad, take your crayons and fill in the lines. You want to use blue and orange? Nope! You get blue and light blue. Sure I can improvise a little, but I'd be kidding myself if I believed for a second that the blue kitten on the page was the sunset I wanted to make, let alone a good one.

The existence of prestige classes that advance two or more different classes or types of classes/abilities seems to support this. In nearly every splat book there's something for those who want to mix different classes to get the right 'feel', and arguably the fact any prestige classes at all exist means that sticking to a single class is neither the only way to play nor the 'right' way to play.

Heck, take a look at 3.5e classes like the Rogue without a capstone, or the Ranger which gets nothing worth mentioning at all for almost its entire second half. It really feels like progressing straight to the end of a class wasn't intended as the only possible choice. Nor would doing so do anything to encourage a player to focus more on their character- it's just as likely they'll feel useless and otherwise saddened their master thief is doing no better than the average pickpocket.

[Melcar]

Thank you.

The fact that OP expressed his confusion at his player playing a real gish build as opposed to a Fighter 4/Wizard 4 sort of demonstrated the lack of system knowledge that comes with his opinion. Melcar I truly do not mean to be offensive by that, but to have a valid opinion on this topic I think requires a little more knowledge on how the game works.

I would say that I have quite the amount of knowledge about this game, but then again I'm no Tippy...


I want to express that what I was asking was if I was the only one who felt that class dipping was a mechanics choice and not a roleplaying choice. I have indeed been witness to the fact that I was or am the only one pretty much, that sees things that way.

I see that fighter 4 / wizard 4 sucks, but the way I see it, is, that its not meant/supposed to be easy to have a lot of different skills. I like it when its difficult and when one choice rules out another choice (most of the time, not always ofc.) When you basically gain classes that advance your spellcasting and BaB and Saves ect... I have a pretty hard time thinking that there is not some benevolent agenda in choosing such a powerful class. And without a very explanatory bagground story I sometime find it difficult to believe that such a class is actually the most natural RP choice of the character.

Another thing is, that I don’t like when a wizard is upstaged magically by some armored sword swinger. Nor do I like when the roped, pointy hat person tanks... I like sticking to what one class is good at. When my fighter says he wants spellcasting abilities I'm like why? You already have a mage in the party, let him do the casting. Let the player excel in his thing so not to make him expendable at the table. So I guess what Im trying to say is that it annoys me, or have annoyed me so far is, when players encroach on each other’s turf and ofc when players build solely for power.

But I must also acknowledge, what this community so clearly has stated; that RP is difficult at best without class dipping. (Again let my express that taking on new classes have never been an issue for me, it was the single class level dip I have or had a problem with.) And that it is needed to attain the abilities of styles of a character when playing a specific concept.

To say this tread have changed my mind entirely would be to lie, but I do see things different now. I still like it more when the wizard is the center of arcane distribution and I still like it more when you can’t easily have the best of both ways in the same build... But I do agree with a lot of point made by a lot of scribes and my views have changed in the matter.

So thanks... You have indeed answered my question more thoroughly than I had hoped for.

[Chronos]

But why shouldn't characters make mechanics-based choices? If my goal is to avenge myself on the goblins who burned down my village, or to prevent the evil wizard from completing the ritual of world-destruction, or just to get fabulously stinking rich or whatever, of course I'm going to give some consideration to what's the best way of accomplishing that goal.

[ArcturusV]

Though there is that part where the Mechanics and Roleplay feed back in that regard. Your Low Wis character may not realize something is less effective. Your low Int character may not be able to formulate a particularly well crafted, brilliant plan in that regard, etc. But yeah, I mean I argued that earlier. If my goal was "Greatest swordsman in the world" why would I take Fighter 12, already have maxed out my "swordsman" talents as far as Fighter levels can give me from bonus feats and am not focusing on stuff like bullrushing, and similar lines of thought.

But when I do build a character I do keep in mind that a character's perspective may be limited in that regard. My 4 Int Fighter/Sorcerer wasn't quite able to plan out that Fighter/Sorcerer was about the worst way to do what he wanted to do (Archer who has some slight magical buffs, going into Anointed Knight).

[Yuki Akuma]

Your character's mental ability scores should have nothing to do with what classes he takes (except in the case of caster classes where having a negative ability modifier means you can't cast anything).

A character never chooses to be a Sorcerer/Fighter. He chooses to focus his innate magical powers in order to be a better ranged combatant. And his training at that will be implemented through specific multiclassing dips.

Now, some prestige classes are totally in-character choices to learn specific skills (to be a Daggerspell Mage you need to join the order, to be a Green Star Adept you need to hunt down starmetal and perform the ritual, etc), but a lot of classes are just generic packages of abilities that people will pick up if they train to fill a certain niche.

You don't go to "Spellsword School". You combine your warrior and mage training in order to seamlessly integrate both. You don't go to "Anointed Knight College". You extrapolate from the divine gifts given to you in order to apply the same sort of rituals you apply to your Ancestral Relic to yourself to aid your fight against the unholy. You don't go to "Archmage University". You just generically study at your particular brand of arcane magic and your ability to subtly bend its rules really intently and figure out that what you used to think of as inviolate laws were really more like guidelines.

[Amphetryon]

Your character's mental ability scores should have nothing to do with what classes he takes (except in the case of caster classes where having a negative ability modifier means you can't cast anything).

A character never chooses to be a Sorcerer/Fighter. He chooses to focus his innate magical powers in order to be a better ranged combatant. And his training at that will be implemented through specific multiclassing dips.

Now, some prestige classes are totally in-character choices to learn specific skills (to be a Daggerspell Mage you need to join the order, to be a Green Star Adept you need to hunt down starmetal and perform the ritual, etc), but a lot of classes are just generic packages of abilities that people will pick up if they train to fill a certain niche.

You don't go to "Spellsword School". You combine your warrior and mage training in order to seamlessly integrate both.

The paragraph I highlighted is a big part of the problem, IMO. When the designers made the decision that certain Prestige Classes were explicitly going to be in-game constructs, they made it problematic for some folks to separate in-game from out-of-game constructs for Classes, in general.

Of course, calling them "Prestige Classes" opened up a whole other set of issues with DMs of a mind to make entering them "prestigious," but I digress.

[Melcar]

Your character's mental ability scores should have nothing to do with what classes he takes (except in the case of caster classes where having a negative ability modifier means you can't cast anything).

A character never chooses to be a Sorcerer/Fighter. He chooses to focus his innate magical powers in order to be a better ranged combatant. And his training at that will be implemented through specific multiclassing dips.

Now, some prestige classes are totally in-character choices to learn specific skills (to be a Daggerspell Mage you need to join the order, to be a Green Star Adept you need to hunt down starmetal and perform the ritual, etc), but a lot of classes are just generic packages of abilities that people will pick up if they train to fill a certain niche.

You don't go to "Spellsword School". You combine your warrior and mage training in order to seamlessly integrate both. You don't go to "Anointed Knight College". You extrapolate from the divine gifts given to you in order to apply the same sort of rituals you apply to your Ancestral Relic to yourself to aid your fight against the unholy. You don't go to "Archmage University". You just generically study at your particular brand of arcane magic and your ability to subtly bend its rules really intently and figure out that what you used to think of as inviolate laws were really more like guidelines.

The problem is (if you consider it a problem) that a actually believe you go the spellsword school, and receive fighter training in the army and wizarding skills at the local tower/ academy. Some, like sorcerer is innate, but to me or for me, a lot of classes are actually something you would have to get training in, they do not simply happen to you!

If my rogue wanted to become a sword sage, he would first have to know that something called a swordsage existed, and then try and find one and then convince this guy or girl to train him in the ways of the swordsage. To me you simply can’t just pick up these abilities by yourself!

[Urpriest]

Another thing is, that I don’t like when a wizard is upstaged magically by some armored sword swinger. Nor do I like when the roped, pointy hat person tanks... I like sticking to what one class is good at. When my fighter says he wants spellcasting abilities I'm like why? You already have a mage in the party, let him do the casting. Let the player excel in his thing so not to make him expendable at the table. So I guess what Im trying to say is that it annoys me, or have annoyed me so far is, when players encroach on each other’s turf and ofc when players build solely for power.

Here's the thing I don't understand: why should this be tied to the class, and not to the casting? Surely it makes more sense for "amount of Wizard casting" to be the measure of whether someone is the party's "mage" rather than "number of Wizard levels"?

Also, the point of being a gish is not to "upstage the fighter" or "upstage the mage". It's either "I am a fighter, and casting will make me a better fighter" or "we have no mage or fighter, I need to be both".

[Da'Shain]

The problem is (if you consider it a problem) that a actually believe you go the spellsword school, and receive fighter training in the army and wizarding skills at the local tower/ academy. Some, like sorcerer is innate, but to me or for me, a lot of classes are actually something you would have to get training in, they do not simply happen to you!

If my rogue wanted to become a sword sage, he would first have to know that something called a swordsage existed, and then try and find one and then convince this guy or girl to train him in the ways of the swordsage. To me you simply can’t just pick up these abilities by yourself!Aside from what's already been pointed out in terms of mechanical effectiveness, part of the problem I feel exists with that mindset is that ... well, it just doesn't make the game very fun. In my experience, DMs for D&D (well, now Pathfinder for me) have a story or theme they want to run, and the player characters are stumbling through that game at a pace that makes stopping and getting training either impossible or narratively nonsensical (the ring must go to Mt. Doom! Quick, stop at this monastery and train for a few months so that you can function near as well when you're forced to discard your own armor and weapons). Enforcing the need for training of certain classes/abilities (and why only certain ones?) means that, effectively, once the campaign begins you're stuck either progressing your base class or are stuck with whatever choices the DM rules don't need training (or need minimal amounts) for whatever reason, unless your group makes a narrative pit stop.

So, for example, if you start as a 1st level fighter and are immediately roped into a quest that's designed to take you up to 6th level, you really don't have the ability to say "hey guys, I'd like more options than just hitting things with my stick" and get into a class that gives you those options (well, I suppose Sorceror if you don't need training for that). For the majority of your adventuring career (since most normal games, again in my experience, peter out around levels 10-12), you're straightjacketed by the class you chose at character creation, which, again, just isn't very fun. And it's all about fun.

Of course, if the restrictions work for you and your group, keep 'em, more power to you. But yeah, I've played in that kind of group before, and I lost interest fairly quickly.

[Vortenger]

UrPriest, as usual you were spot on and you delivered it in a flawless fashion. Thanks. Do you mind if I print and post your descriptions for my two groups? I think a few players may be enlightened...

[Melcar]

The way I see it... And yes this thread have changed my mind somewhat, but im not sure every fighter just wakes up one morning and thinks he wants to do something else with his life and want magical abilities. It should come from what he does ingame, and not from the player changing his mind. If you picked up the sword and the armon in the first place, that must somehow be related to your basic abilities like intelligence and wisdom. Because who int there right mind would not like to command phenominal cosmic power. So if you are a fighter I believe it to be related not to choice but because its whats left. Again I try to think in mideval terms. If your not basically born with "great" powers you are ultimately stuck with manual labor.

[Zombulian]

The way I see it... And yes this thread have changed my mind somewhat, but im not sure every fighter just wakes up one morning and thinks he wants to do something else with his life and want magical abilities. It should come from what he does ingame, and not from the player changing his mind. If you picked up the sword and the armon in the first place, that must somehow be related to your basic abilities like intelligence and wisdom. Because who int there right mind would not like to command phenominal cosmic power. So if you are a fighter I believe it to be related not to choice but because its whats left. Again I try to think in mideval terms. If your not basically born with "great" powers you are ultimately stuck with manual labor.

At this point I'm getting the feeling that your players don't share any of the mindsets we illustrated to make dipping for RP valid.

[Urpriest]

UrPriest, as usual you were spot on and you delivered it in a flawless fashion. Thanks. Do you mind if I print and post your descriptions for my two groups? I think a few players may be enlightened...

Sure!


The way I see it... And yes this thread have changed my mind somewhat, but im not sure every fighter just wakes up one morning and thinks he wants to do something else with his life and want magical abilities. It should come from what he does ingame, and not from the player changing his mind. If you picked up the sword and the armon in the first place, that must somehow be related to your basic abilities like intelligence and wisdom. Because who int there right mind would not like to command phenominal cosmic power. So if you are a fighter I believe it to be related not to choice but because its whats left. Again I try to think in mideval terms. If your not basically born with "great" powers you are ultimately stuck with manual labor.

See, if you're actually going Fighter 2/Wizard X or whatever, you already have a high Int, so you've already got precisely the sort of "great" powers that let someone be a wizard.

That said, I totally do think that RP should be involved...but you have to realize, in any actual case it will be. If someone is planning on playing a gish build, even if they start at level 1 their character won't be roleplayed as a generic Fighter. They're a "gish in training", a warrior who has intentionally set themselves on a path that ends up blending magic and swordplay. Maybe they can't cast spells yet, but their character should generally be highly interested in magic regardless, since next level they're going to have independently researched several spells courtesy of their starting Wizard allotment. Again, any actual player in a campaign is going to RP their character this sort of way, if you don't (as the majority of games do) just start at a high enough level for them to have levels in both classes already.

[Draz74]

I agree with Arcturus's comment back at the beginning of the thread:


Also another thought that came to mind. Multiclassing being "in character" kind of depend on setting too. Take a setting like Faerun (Or Eberron perhaps). Really other than "It's better to take Wizard 5 than Wizard 4, Fighter 1" there's no real restriction. It's an open, enlightened world where information and training is presumed to flow pretty freely for the most part. Compare against a setting like Krynn or Rokugan, both of which are very caste based. You don't just "become a wizard" in Krynn, you have to go to the Tower of High Sorcery and pass a deadly test... after which, well, you don't risk life and limb to say "... eh. I'm done with magic. I'mma be a Fighter now".

I prefer settings where the mechanics of a class are divorced from the fluff. Settings where Tippy's and Urpriest's arguments are valid; settings where Miko can be a samurai without having levels in Samurai.

But like Arcturus said, there are settings that support the idea of "classes are educations, not just stat blocks." And in those settings, it's true, dipping 1 level in a bunch of different classes doesn't make much sense.

As for the power-gaming question ... you have to keep in mind that the kinds of builds that actually benefit in power from lots of dipping (i.e. non-casters) still won't be as powerful as the caster classes. A Barbarian 1 / Fighter 2 / Ranger 3 / Horizon Walker 1 / Warblade 1 / Psychic Warrior 2 / Swordsage 1 / Crusader 2 / Martial Rogue 2 is still in big trouble against a well-played Druid 15.

So really, if power-gaming is your concern, you should be more leery of taking a 3rd level of Druid than you should be of multiclassing to a third class.

[Eldest]

The way I see it... And yes this thread have changed my mind somewhat, but im not sure every fighter just wakes up one morning and thinks he wants to do something else with his life and want magical abilities. It should come from what he does ingame, and not from the player changing his mind. If you picked up the sword and the armon in the first place, that must somehow be related to your basic abilities like intelligence and wisdom. Because who int there right mind would not like to command phenominal cosmic power. So if you are a fighter I believe it to be related not to choice but because its whats left. Again I try to think in mideval terms. If your not basically born with "great" powers you are ultimately stuck with manual labor.

...no? Look at Roy from OOTS. He has the stats for anything, but he really wanted to fight, and so he's a fighter. I mean, I'm fairly smart but I wouldn't go for wizardry*, most likely, for the same reason I didn't go to school to become an engineer. I'm not interested, in spite of having the aptitude and something of the mindset for it.

*I'd still likely end up studying magic some, because it's fascinating, so maybe a dip. So that's one explanation of taking a dip: in the theoretical "me" in D&Dverse, I'd learn a bit of magic, but I don't want phenomenal cosmic power, I want to explore all the cool stuff that just came into existence, and focusing just on one aspect, magic, would prevent me from learning about the religions, the monsters, the social dynamic, etc. Also, ew, robes. Itchy things. :smalltongue:

[Craft (Cheese)]

Another thing is, that I don’t like when a wizard is upstaged magically by some armored sword swinger. Nor do I like when the roped, pointy hat person tanks... I like sticking to what one class is good at. When my fighter says he wants spellcasting abilities I'm like why? You already have a mage in the party, let him do the casting. Let the player excel in his thing so not to make him expendable at the table. So I guess what Im trying to say is that it annoys me, or have annoyed me so far is, when players encroach on each other’s turf and ofc when players build solely for power.

If the Swiftblade is consistently upstaging the party's single-classed Wizard (totally possible if he uses his spells intelligently and minimizes loss of caster levels), and the Wizard player is unhappy about this, then yes, that's a legitimate problem that needs a solution.

I don't think that solution should be "Okay Swiftblade character, you're a single-classed Fighter from now on."

[Rubik]

...no? Look at Roy from OOTS. He has the stats for anything, but he really wanted to fight, and so he's a fighter. I mean, I'm fairly smart but I wouldn't go for wizardry*, most likely, for the same reason I didn't go to school to become an engineer. I'm not interested, in spite of having the aptitude and something of the mindset for it.

*I'd still likely end up studying magic some, because it's fascinating, so maybe a dip. So that's one explanation of taking a dip: in the theoretical "me" in D&Dverse, I'd learn a bit of magic, but I don't want phenomenal cosmic power, I want to explore all the cool stuff that just came into existence, and focusing just on one aspect, magic, would prevent me from learning about the religions, the monsters, the social dynamic, etc. Also, ew, robes. Itchy things. :smalltongue:If that ever happened, try factotum or something for your first level, since it's got a low starting age. Take wizard or psion or archivist for your second, since you can gain a full level in less than a day if you do it right. Then retrain.

[Eldest]

If that ever happened, try factotum or something for your first level, since it's got a low starting age. Take wizard or psion or archivist for your second, since you can gain a full level in less than a day if you do it right. Then retrain.

Only one level in Factotum? :smalltongue:
But yes, likely some combination of Factotum and Psion.

Actually on topic:

If the Swiftblade is consistently upstaging the party's single-classed Wizard (totally possible if he uses his spells intelligently and minimizes loss of caster levels), and the Wizard player is unhappy about this, then yes, that's a legitimate problem that needs a solution.

I don't think that solution should be "Okay Swiftblade character, you're a single-classed Fighter from now on."

To elaborate, the problem is that the Swiftblade's player is better at using his resources than the Wizard's player, in that hypothetical case. Which shouldn't really be solved by cutting off the Swiftblade from magic, I agree. I'd suggest teaching the Wizard instead.

[ericgrau]

+1 to yes and no. Dips can represent a wider variety of roleplaying concepts than single classing. But they can also make no sense roleplaying-wise. Depends how well you pull it off and which dip(s) you use to do what.

I once had an elven fighter who dipped wizard and went into epic arcane archer. He liked to use tricky magic items a lot. The immediate response was "OH GAWD HE'S AN ELF".

[Chronos]

+1 to yes and no. Dips can represent a wider variety of roleplaying concepts than single classing. But they can also make no sense roleplaying-wise.
Well, the player had some reason for making those choices, right? Why can't those be the same reasons, in-game, why the character made those choices? "I want to be more powerful" is a perfectly valid reason for a character, as is "I think it would be cool".

[ericgrau]

There are some ways to get power that make sense in the game world. There are some that make no sense at all in the game world and only work via exploiting some rules mechanics combo that has no conceptual mirror.

Dipping to gain an ability specific to the dip is usually fine. Doing it to pull some trick depends. Most players don't try to exploit the system and any dip they try, even to optimize, is fine and makes sense without even trying. But some do try to exploit the system.

[Flickerdart]

"I want to be more powerful" is the only reason you need when the consequence for not being powerful enough is being eaten by dragons.

[lsfreak]

"I want to be more powerful" is the only reason you need when the consequence for not being powerful enough is being eaten by dragons.

I don't think this can be understated enough. A 2nd-level character is expected to have faced 13 situations where their continuing existence was in serious danger. By 5th level, you're putting SpecOps teams to shame with the number of life-or-death situations you've been in. You have to be badass or you're dead, and anyone that's lived past first level knows it.

I don't think going after a certain trick is metagaming, any more than real-like situations like knowing that taking boring course A lets you get on good terms with the teacher, letting you get a spot in limited-enrollment course 2, or that quitting job A and taking job 2 will get you in line for a promotion to your ideal position of γ.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But some do try to exploit the system.
Though what counts as "exploiting the system" varies widely among groups, of course.

[Rubik]

Though what counts as "exploiting the system" varies widely among groups, of course.Do note that people do this IRL all the time. Any system has loopholes, and people will try to find those loopholes and exploit them to the best of their ability.

[Juntao112]

Like obtaining research fellowships and grants in grad school...

[Amphetryon]

Like obtaining research fellowships and grants in grad school...

Or getting your "breadth requirements" done ASAP so that you can graduate in 4 years, rather than 4 1/2 or more.

[Chronos]

And if the loopholes are really abusive, then that's the problem, not the dipping. Remember, there are plenty of rules abuses that are available to a single-classed character, too.

[LTwerewolf]

Character classes are an abstraction that only the player, not the characters see. So if your character is based on a certain concept, and that concept isn't supported by a single base class, then what then?

Dips are more about getting the abilities your character concept needs. Else you're stuck with very limiting role play.

"Well, the ranger class doesn't really do sniping because it doesn't have really hard hitting single attacks, so you can't be a sniper." That's pretty lame, no?

[ericgrau]

And if the loopholes are really abusive, then that's the problem, not the dipping. Remember, there are plenty of rules abuses that are available to a single-classed character, too.
Ya there are several ways but having 6-7 classes is commonly associated with abuse. Dipping 1-2 is less often. Specifically I mean the kind that makes no role playing sense at all and is very hard to explain away. Not optimization in general.

You gotta distinguish between optimizing, borderline munchkining and pure munchkining. Optimizing isn't necessarily bad for role play, but that doesn't mean that all optimization is fine for role play. Some things that give power, especially tricks, bend verisimilitude over backwards and make it cry. And dips are one of the major methods associated with this. Even though most dips are fine and there are other methods. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen a lot.

So if you want to dabble for fluff or power, dip freely without worry as it's unlikely to affect role play. But if you're pulling some specific trick and the trick makes no role playing sense, shame on you. The point is that both exist.

[Chronos]

Ya there are several ways but having 6-7 classes is commonly associated with abuse.
Maybe it is, but it shouldn't be. You want to see an abusive build? Try Druid 20. That has far more access to abusive tricks than any combination of fighter, ranger, barbarian, weapon master, orc paragon, warblade, and frenzied berserker will ever have.

[ericgrau]

System abuse is like cat skinning. More than one way, and on the flipside just because you have a knife doesn't mean you'll necessarily skin a cat with it.

You know it always irked me in WoW that there is less than one way to skin a cat.

[Zombulian]

System abuse is like cat skinning. More than one way, and on the flipside just because you have a knife doesn't mean you'll necessarily skin a cat with it.

You know it always irked me in WoW that there is less than one way to skin a cat.

You can't skin cats at all? I doubt that.

[Eldest]

System abuse is like cat skinning. More than one way, and on the flipside just because you have a knife doesn't mean you'll necessarily skin a cat with it.

You know it always irked me in WoW that there is less than one way to skin a cat.

But is there something wrong with using what you call system abuse to bring an otherwise unplayable class to an ok level, then?

[Amphetryon]

System abuse is like cat skinning. More than one way, and on the flipside just because you have a knife doesn't mean you'll necessarily skin a cat with it.

You know it always irked me in WoW that there is less than one way to skin a cat.

Could you, perhaps, list a dip-related "system abuse" Character that breaks the game in ways that, for example, Druid 20 with Natural Spell or Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 does?

[ericgrau]

You can't skin cats at all? I doubt that.
Not in WoW, no. You can kill and skin deer. IIRC you can skin rabbits but I'm not sure. You can kill cats but not skin them.

[Zombulian]

Not in WoW, no. You can kill and skin deer. IIRC you can skin rabbits but I'm not sure. You can kill cats but not skin them.

I was about to be incredibly bewildered because basically everything with the beast type in WoW can be skinned. Then I realized you were talking about critters.

[Subaru Kujo]

As far as dipping goes, just tell me what your guy plans on doing so I can give adventures that reflect on his dips. Obviously if he's going to dip Wizard, I'd think giving him a personalized spellbook beforehand would be cool. Same sort of thing for the other classes.

[Pickford]

ArcturusV:

Clerics and Paladins don't really have that problem so much because divine intervention is literally part of their class, and it's entirely likely that some god just goes "Bam... you're a Paladin now, don't **** it up."

3.5 PHB Paladins are called to righteousness, there isn't any divine intervention, nor is any god required.

In terms of fluff, the d&d paladin is someone who can't help themselves but to "do the right thing" (tm).

I also have to disagree with your earlier post suggesting a Fighter 10 would somehow be inferior at fighting compared to a mutt. The Fighter can have a higher to hit and deal more damage per hit...that's the very definition (in this game) of being a superior swordsman. (The Fighter can also take advantage of combat expertise whereas the raging barbarian cannot).

I don't think it's a problem for players to mix-match whatever they want, after all they're suffering XP penalties if they dip too often.

Emperor_Tippy: When leveling up, the skill is only a class skill if it's a class skill in whatever you're taking a level in. (i.e. Wizard 19/Fighter 1 doesn't have UMD as a class skill when taking the Fighter level)

Isfreak: If you're claiming a Paladin is a master swordsman, you're just wrong. That's not a failure to roleplay, that's a failure to comprehend what classes are.

Draz74:

A Barbarian 1 / Fighter 2 / Ranger 3 / Horizon Walker 1 / Warblade 1 / Psychic Warrior 2 / Swordsage 1 / Crusader 2 / Martial Rogue 2 is still in big trouble against a well-played Druid 15.

A character that dysfunctional would also be inferior to any of those classes at 15 levels. (They suffer all the negatives with none of the benefits).

[ArcturusV]

I disagree, respectfully. As I read it, a Paladin isn't someone who "just does the right thing" or "is naturally compelled to do the right thing". A paladin is someone who the divine forces of Good went "Hey, you, be our champion!"

... how that's not necessarily divine intervention in fate I don't know. Granted mechanically there is nothing stopping someone from just being a Paladin. Not like 2nd edition where you had racial requirements (Human Only) and high stat requirements (Including that 17 Charisma).

But fluff wise? Fluff wise someone who didn't have the finger of Divine Good on their soul saying "Yeah, you, you're mine", just can't become a Paladin. They can pray, and beg, and train, and such all they want, but they'll never be one. No matter how good they are, how pious, etc. They'll just be a Fighter, or maybe a Cleric depending on their particular way they tried to train.

The fighter 10 thing is... entirely up in the air I admit.

I mean what if I wanted my "Fighter" to be some master swordsman who is dedicated to a single weapon and it's use. Well, Weapon Familiarity, Weapon Specialization, etc, sure, makes sense. I need it for the concept. Combat expertise, might make sense. Improved Disarm probably as it's a very swordsman thing to do (Usual parry twirl disarm). Maybe Improved Feint because again, fits concept. Though even less likely than Disarm because it's mechanically bad and as a Fighter 10 I have nothing to really use the Flat-Footed status for except shaving Dex AC off. Maybe Combat Reflexes if my Dex is good. Or Improved Initiative if it's not.

Now as a Fighter 10 I have: Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus. Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Combat Reflexes/Improved Initiative being almost mutually exclusive (If I have a high dex, I don't really need the Improved Initiative. If I don't, I can't use Reflexes anyway).

That only uses up 6 of my feats. Just what I'd get out of Fighter 10. But already we're kinda branching out, adding things we don't really need like Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm just to pad out the build.

Compare to say, if I went Samurai 2/Fighter 8 even. I still have the Weapon line. I still have just as many bonus feats (As Samurai 2 gives me one), I might actually have a reason to pick Combat Expertise and Improved Feint, as that can be used for Iajutsu Focus, and I have a class ability to is geared around making my sword the bestest sword, matching my skills.

So even then, it's better that I have a 2 off dip in another Tier 5 class like Samurai, over taking Fighter straight up to 10.

[Flickerdart]

But fluff wise? Fluff wise someone who didn't have the finger of Divine Good on their soul saying "Yeah, you, you're mine", just can't become a Paladin. They can pray, and beg, and train, and such all they want, but they'll never be one. No matter how good they are, how pious, etc. They'll just be a Fighter, or maybe a Cleric depending on their particular way they tried to train.
You've got it backwards. You don't need a "divine spark" before you can become a paladin. Becoming a paladin means that you have the "divine spark."

[ArcturusV]

Maybe. I admit it's a sketchy thing. I mean the game just presumes if you took a level of Paladin you back story already had the calling and have finally answered it. Least as near as I can follow. In a pure fluff "how the world works" sort of storytelling sense however you either had it, or you didn't have it to start with an no choice you make impacts it.

Sort of how they handle things like the Jade Pheonix Mage where it's just handwaved away that you just happened to be one of the reincarnated JPMs but never knew it until you took a level in the class. Though by the fluff it means you always were destined to be one and finally embraced your destiny (Or not, died before you could, and passed it on to someone else).

[Pickford]

ArcturusV: I'd also pick up Improved Critical (something the other classes could only get 'if' they took it as their 9th level feat)

[OldTrees1]

I agree with the idea that a character should have an RP element of a class before taking a level in that class.

Somewhere along the line a would be Paladin needs to feel the call to become a paragon of the ideal the Paladin class represents (Honor, Freedom, Tyranny, Slaughter, ...). This call to idealism could have been long before they matured enough to have levels or it could have been triggered by recent events (The death of Bruce's parents?).

The important thing is that the character must fit a concept before the mechanics of the game (classes) can be used to try to represent that concept.
A character might have been focusing on martial training in preparation for devoting themselves to the ideal (Ftr 2/Pal 1).
A character might have been a weapon's master that has always wanted to experiment with the blitzing technique of the Lion tribe (Ftr 2/Barb 1).
However it would not work for a character with no interest in magic to suddenly take up magical studies for no in game reason (OOC decision).
It would be reasonable if the character had an in game reason or a prior interest in taking up magical studies. (Ftr 2 / Wiz 1)

[georgie_leech]

It would be reasonable if the character had an in game reason or a prior interest in taking up magical studies. (Ftr 2 / Wiz 1)

Belief that mastery of the self must come before mastery of their chosen magic style, and weapon training was their avenue for that?

[Rubik]

Refluffing counts for some as well. Wizard is difficult to refluff, since the mechanics force having a spellbook, but classes such as psion can be refluffed with virtually no effort at all. Spontaneously developing magical powers because of one's heritage or because of an accident is part and parcel of fantasy, and requires no preparations and no immediate explanations, though finding out later that you had, say, an aboleth in your family tree is perfectly acceptable.

...from a story standpoint, anyway. From a personal standpoint? Probably not so much.

[Thanatosia]

I've never understood the bias against class dips. As others have said, the top most optimized builds don't use dips at all. In general, dips usually lower a characters performance, though there are exceptions.

Without dips, you have characters that are all stereotypical archtypes. Dips are what lets a character be a 'little off' from the archtype, and that's always a good thing in my eyes. If anything, I wish D&D made dipping more attractive, and let characters mix and match classes more effectively, the ability to do it at all is the main thing that made me fall in love with 3.0 over previous versions of D&D... when I go play a 2.0 type system (I'lll never do it in a real game at this point, but when I want to play Baldurs Gate or similar old PC games however), being locked into a single class (or classes) and not having the freedom to take levels in different classes just frustrates the heck out of me.

What happens when a Fighters decides to pick up a book of magic and dabble a bit? You get a wizard dip. It's not an effective build usually from a min/max perspective, but it adds character, and the idea of a swordsman who can suddenly summon a ball of light or charm an unwary sentry is just cool.

As for Paladins, I think they get their power in a way similar to the vows, they have to be lawful good and they commit themselves to the cause, wich allows them to start building up their supernatural powers, with each sucessive level added of paladin representing the growing power of their conviction.

[Flickerdart]

Wizard is difficult to refluff, since the mechanics force having a spellbook
There are a lot of various variant spellbooks - CArc presents us with tattoos, rune bones, and building spellbooks where you literally memorize spells from architecture how freakin' cool is that. And then there's the variant where you smoke joints to prepare spells. Between the lot of them, you can do a bit of refluffing for sure.

[Eldest]

The important thing is that the character must fit a concept before the mechanics of the game (classes) can be used to try to represent that concept.
A character might have been focusing on martial training in preparation for devoting themselves to the ideal (Ftr 2/Pal 1).
A character might have been a weapon's master that has always wanted to experiment with the blitzing technique of the Lion tribe (Ftr 2/Barb 1).
However it would not work for a character with no interest in magic to suddenly take up magical studies for no in game reason (OOC decision).
It would be reasonable if the character had an in game reason or a prior interest in taking up magical studies. (Ftr 2 / Wiz 1)

Ok, what is so different about cases 2 and 3? Seriously, do you require your players to talk about the glory of the lion tribe every chance they get? And then once they learn it it gets dropped like a burning rock because the player is tired of it? Wizard 1 means that they took a few semesters of physics, in the level of mastery over magic it implies. I mean, you can summon a horse for two hours. You can run faster. You can put a few creatures to sleep if they fail to throw off the spell. Summon a stronger monster for 6 seconds after concentrating for 6 seconds. Throw up a shield of force for 6 seconds.

[upho]

I want to express that what I was asking was if I was the only one who felt that class dipping was a mechanics choice and not a roleplaying choice. I have indeed been witness to the fact that I was or am the only one pretty much, that sees things that way.I think the part I emphasized puts the finger on what I simply cannot grasp, despite having read numerous versions of the same view/feeling and several attempts at explaining it (you're far from alone). I believe what could almost be called the opposite to be true:

A mechanics choice like class dipping is an important, sometimes essential, roleplaying and balance choice. Limiting mechanics (PC build options) is to limit the tools available to support RP and improve balance.

I'll try to explain my views and experiences, hopefully making it clear why I have such problems understanding yours. First, about mechanics. Simply put, I believe the mechanics of a PC should primarily:

reflect the PC concept/RP/fluff as far as possible
be as balanced, in terms of total usefulness/"spotlight hogging"-potential, to the other PCs in the party as possible
have their effectiveness in any area measured/defined in comparisons to other characters, especially other PCs, in the game

So for example, in a mid-level party containing a druid, a cleric, a bard and a fourth PC described as, say, "an unparalleled champion who excel at combat — turning hunks of metal into arms capable of defeating his enemies and controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter)", this fourth PC should absolutely not be a single warrior core class like fighter, regardless of setting and despite the (PF) fighter class description being near identical to the character description.

Why? Primarily because of RP - the more an RPG's mechanics regulate a certain situation (like combat), the more they define a character in that situation and thus the more important it becomes that the mechanics actually support the description and the characterization of the PC in that situation. In a game like D&D, even a fluff description worthy of a Nobel Prize or a PC characterization worthy of an Oscar "Best Actor" award has a comparatively insignificant impact on the mechanics-heavy combat events in the game. Secondarily because serious party imbalance issues can easily turn a fun group game into a boring one-man (or "few-man") show near impossible to DM. As in my example above, having a PC with a single tier 5 class (such as the fighter) team up with PCs with tier 1 classes (such as the druid and cleric) is to invite those imbalance issues with open arms.

Second, about RP. It seems you and, at least as far as I can remember, all the people whose views are similar and I've read about, have a different definition of what RP actually is. I might be biased from working as an actor, but IMO:

roleplay = improvised acting and "puppeteering" of your PC's actions
everything else PC (background and personality description, build options/mechanics etc) = RP/acting and story/game tools

What I mean by this is that things like multi-dips or optimized mechanics have little to do with RP at its core (you don't need any mechanics to RP), and especially that char-op does not, in any way, require or even imply a lessened focus on RP. IME, it's most often actually the opposite, ie that players with system mastery and highly optimized PC builds also tend to do be a lot more involved in the RP. (Though admittedly, the optimization I'm speaking of is primarily of the "as suited to the character concept, party and campaign as possible"-type, not the munchkin "as mechanically effective as possible according to RAW"-type.)

It's also perfectly possible to RP a D&D PC brilliantly, despite having nothing except a list of mechanics on your character sheet. In D&D, the mechanics are of course required in order to make it possible for a PC to interact with the game world in certain ways (like beating up monsters), but everything else - a background story, personality and appearance descriptions, even a name - aren't strictly required to have prepared in order to play the game, or even to characterize a PC with a deep, rich and believable personality (though being well prepared tends to greatly improve RP, of course). Similarly, it's perfectly possible the player who wrote an intricate and colorful 100-page background story deeply rooted in the setting doesn't RP beyond the necessary boring basics (à la "my PC goes to the castle and tries to convince the king, with a... 32 Diplomacy check." :smallyuk:).


I see that fighter 4 / wizard 4 sucks, but the way I see it, is, that its not meant/supposed to be easy to have a lot of different skills. I like it when its difficult and when one choice rules out another choice (most of the time, not always ofc.) When you basically gain classes that advance your spellcasting and BaB and Saves ect... I have a pretty hard time thinking that there is not some benevolent agenda in choosing such a powerful class. And without a very explanatory bagground story I sometime find it difficult to believe that such a class is actually the most natural RP choice of the character.Unfortunately, the 3.PF rules and guidelines aren't well suited to an 8th level PC as ineffective as a fighter 4/wizard 4 would be, unless you adapt stuff, including nerfing other PCs, to suit that sucky build. Barring that, what you actually do by disallowing the multi-dip build of this gish is to disallow the whole character concept. Not by banning the concept per se, but by making it impossible to reflect mechanically in a way that is even close to balanced to other 8th level PCs.

You're of course perfectly entitled to your view "that its not meant/supposed to be easy to have a lot of different skills" and to reflect that view in the PC options available to your players. But, as I guess you're well aware of a) the inherent caster/mundane class balance problem and the rather severe limitations to PC options this typically causes, and b) the system mastery required to create an effective build that supports a character concept outside the predetermined class boxes, why would you prefer to further limit the number of viable character concepts, rather than simply asking the player of any build that threatens to become OP to tone it down?

And in the case of gishes, besides some highly specific builds (such as a fighter/cleric/crusader/RKV), they're virtually guaranteed to be less powerful than a more regular full caster build. So if you allow those more regular builds, your view of "not meant/supposed to be easy" is already reflected in the mechanics.

When it comes to matching PCs to a particular setting, I would highly recommend looking primarily at the suitability of a character concept, generally disregarding the build's mechanics and especially ignoring the class origins of those mechanics. For example, in a setting without powerful and active gods, it's a lot better to say that no PC can have any powers granted by a god than to ban all classes with divine casting (most mechanical options related to divine casting don't require a power source as specific as the existence of meddling deities in order to function). Or if you want a certain set of mechanics to be restricted to a particular group in the setting, consider first restricting the most powerful of such options (such as tier 1 caster classes) and generally only restrict the higher level options (don't restrict the wizard class, but restrict taking more than 5 levels of wizard).


Another thing is, that I don’t like when a wizard is upstaged magically by some armored sword swinger. Nor do I like when the roped, pointy hat person tanks...And how many wizards builds have you witnessed being "upstaged magically by some armored sword swinger"? Unless your typical wizard player is a far less skilled/dedicated char-opper and tactician than your typical arcane gish player for some weird reason, I'm having a really hard time seeing how this could be a common problem.


I like sticking to what one class is good at. When my fighter says he wants spellcasting abilities I'm like why? You already have a mage in the party, let him do the casting. Let the player excel in his thing so not to make him expendable at the table. So I guess what Im trying to say is that it annoys me, or have annoyed me so far is, when players encroach on each other’s turf and ofc when players build solely for power.Here's the thing: a player deciding to bring a tier 1-2 class, like a full caster, to a party containing a fighter is much more guilty of building "solely for power", choosing a class that comes loaded with ways to not just encroach on the fighter's turf, but also to completely overshadow the fighter's performance and make him/her mechanically irrelevant in most other aspects of the game before even reaching 10th level. And that's on top of also being able to overshadow the party's other non-casters. Again, IME most gish builds, not to mention non-casters, are significantly less almighty though, regardless of the number of dips they may contain.

So I wouldn't just allow multi-dips and several weird PrCs to non-caster PCs in a party with tier 1-2 builds, I would actively encourage and help the players of those PCs to hunt down every mechanical advantage they can find, allow all official sources and even rewrite the fluff of good mechanical options if necessary to min-max the crap out of their concepts. But then, I probably wouldn't DM a group of players who didn't agree on keeping their builds in, or close to, a target tier before starting character creation.

[georgie_leech]

In regards to it not being easy to acquire new skills, wouldn't that be reflected in the increased amount of xp needed for a Wizard 4/Fighter 1 to go to Fighter 2 than for a simple Fighter 1?

[Twilightwyrm]

It depends on the character. If for instance, a barbarian is part of a devout tribe, is particularly religious them self, or just been healed by the clergy a few too many times and has become a true believer, a level of cleric wouldn't be a bad representation of this. Alternatively, manifesting sorcerers powers later in life (and therefore taking a level of sorcerer) is specifically mentioned in several rule books. So no, from an RP standpoint, class dips can make a great deal of sense. Though feel free to make the player justify such dips.

[OldTrees1]

Ok, what is so different about cases 2 and 3? Seriously, do you require your players to talk about the glory of the lion tribe every chance they get? And then once they learn it it gets dropped like a burning rock because the player is tired of it? Wizard 1 means that they took a few semesters of physics, in the level of mastery over magic it implies. I mean, you can summon a horse for two hours. You can run faster. You can put a few creatures to sleep if they fail to throw off the spell. Summon a stronger monster for 6 seconds after concentrating for 6 seconds. Throw up a shield of force for 6 seconds.

The difference is one decision (#2) is both IC and OOC while the other is just OOC (#3).

A decision can be both IC and OOC without the player mentioning the reason every other sentence or even every other session. Or even mentioning it at all.

[Eldest]

The difference is one decision (#2) is both IC and OOC while the other is just OOC (#3).

A decision can be both IC and OOC without the player mentioning the reason every other sentence or even every other session. Or even mentioning it at all.

So you can have a decision be an IC decision without mentioning it at all. And somehow for #3 there is not an IC decision to study a bit of magic...? I mean, if you decide that a character can declare that he was interested in something and studied it retroactively, which is what I think you mean by having a decision be IC without ever mentioning it, I fail to see the difference between declaring that interest was Introductions to Thamaturgy 101 or the battle rituals of the Lion Tribe.

[OldTrees1]

So you can have a decision be an IC decision without mentioning it at all. And somehow for #3 there is not an IC decision to study a bit of magic...? I mean, if you decide that a character can declare that he was interested in something and studied it retroactively, which is what I think you mean by having a decision be IC without ever mentioning it, I fail to see the difference between declaring that interest was Introductions to Thamaturgy 101 or the battle rituals of the Lion Tribe.

Retroactive interest is not what I meant by an IC decision without ever mentioning it. I meant an unstated non retroactive interest. However provided the retroactive interest does not contradict anything important then I would be fine with that too. (although I can see some DMs being less accepting/not accepting of a retroactive interest)

I am judging what is acceptable from the position of most information (inside the player's head). The player is the one that is in the best position to evaluate whether their dipping is reasonable or not. They are best able to identify if the dip is an IC and OOC decision or just an OOC decision. (I readily admit that there is a great deal of trust in my group)

There is no difference in the judgement between IC interest in Thaumaturgy and IC interest in the Lion Tribe blitzes. Melee and Magic are to be respected and treated fairly. The difference that does cause a difference in judgement is the difference between IC&OOC vs OOC. (perhaps looking at examples 3[Ftr/Wiz OOC] & 4[Ftr/Wiz IC&OOC] would make this clearer)

[upho]

In regards to it not being easy to acquire new skills, wouldn't that be reflected in the increased amount of xp needed for a Wizard 4/Fighter 1 to go to Fighter 2 than for a simple Fighter 1?Yeah, that as well. Plus the often rather shaky early levels before builds like these have managed to get their most important mechanical combos together.

[upho]

The difference that does cause a difference in judgement is the difference between IC&OOC vs OOC. (perhaps looking at examples 3[Ftr/Wiz OOC] & 4[Ftr/Wiz IC&OOC] would make this clearer)Huh? Could you perhaps give an example of a fighter giving an "IC&OOC" reason for taking a level of wizard, without mentioning it and without having been lucky enough to have been in an in-game situation where the arcane arts were particularly crucial in some manner. And then please explain how you, as a DM, know this to be an IC&OOC reason, not just a pure OOC reason.

Also, as a player I could come up with tons of ways to "justify" my PC taking a level of wizard if the requirements for doing so are as low as you seem to imply.

My lvl 2 fighter: "You'll find me in the library until we're ready to leave town again, guys. Don't laugh, I'm gonna see if I can find that old wizard again, or at least some book to read more about what he told us. You know, really caught my interest, the things he said about the arcane arts when we met him there. Really fascinating stuff..." Would this be enough of an IC reason, you think?

[OldTrees1]

Huh? Could you perhaps give an example of a fighter giving an "IC&OOC" reason for taking a level of wizard, without mentioning it and without having been lucky enough to have been in an in-game situation where the arcane arts were particularly crucial in some manner. And then please explain how you, as a DM, know this to be an IC&OOC reason, not just a pure OOC reason.

Also, as a player I could come up with tons of ways to "justify" my PC taking a level of wizard if the requirements for doing so are as low as you seem to imply.

My lvl 2 fighter: "You'll find me in the library until we're ready to leave town again, guys. Don't laugh, I'm gonna see if I can find that old wizard again, or at least some book to read more about what he told us. You know, really caught my interest, the things he said about the arcane arts when we met him there. Really fascinating stuff..." Would this be enough of an IC reason, you think?

1) Example of an IC&OOC unstated reason to dip Wizard as a Fighter without an in game situation where the arcane arts were crucial:
IC: Bob(played by John) aspires to be like the gishes of lore. However Bob wished to seek discipline before attempting the arcane arts.
OOC: I want Bob to be a gish
At the table: John levels Bob up as a Wizard next level up time

2) How would the DM know it was IC/OOC rather than just OOC?
In a trustworthy group?: By asking the player to honestly evaluate if their character would do that.
In an untrustworthy group?: By asking about the IC reason. BS usually takes longer to say and has less detail than the truth.

3) If you see the word justify in quotes, then you should take that as the warning sign it is.

4) If your fighter had an interest in the arcane arts/developed an interest by being fascinated by an arcane display/..., then yes that is a valid reason to seek to add some arcane mechanics (Ex: levels in wizard) to your character. However if you and your character disagreed about what you wanted to do, then no. (Aka if those words were said honestly, then yes)

[Da'Shain]

1) Example of an IC&OOC unstated reason to dip Wizard as a Fighter without an in game situation where the arcane arts were crucial:
IC: Bob(played by John) aspires to be like the gishes of lore. However Bob wished to seek discipline before attempting the arcane arts.
OOC: I want Bob to be a gish
At the table: John levels Bob up as a Wizard next level up time

2) How would the DM know it was IC/OOC rather than just OOC?
In a trustworthy group?: By asking the player to honestly evaluate if their character would do that.
In an untrustworthy group?: By asking about the IC reason. BS usually takes longer to say and has less detail than the truth.

3) If you see the word justify in quotes, then you should take that as the warning sign it is.

4) If your fighter had an interest in the arcane arts/developed an interest by being fascinated by an arcane display/..., then yes that is a valid reason to seek to add some arcane mechanics (Ex: levels in wizard) to your character. However if you and your character disagreed about what you wanted to do, then no. (Aka if those words were said honestly, then yes)... this is really sounding like an adversarial DM style to me. Trustworthy vs untrustworthy groups? Making decisions based on what you think is justified for the character, not what the character's creator thinks? Measuring response times to gauge "honesty"?

Why? Why do all this when multiclassing is specifically allowed (and allowed for!) by the rules with no penalties except XP ones? Why engender this atmosphere of purely subjective restrictions and limitations on character abilities, when the class level system is modular precisely so that people can combine classes in interesting ways?

People in real life decide to pursue alternate career paths or pick up new skills all the time, quite often with very little in the way of motivation other than "I was bored, I wanted something new." When people are in combat effectively every day against opponents who are all fully capable of killing them, another justification becomes pretty much a trump card: "I want to be more effective." Why enforce all these requirements for extra justifications? You're not being any more "realistic" by doing so, I'll tell you that.

[OldTrees1]

... this is really sounding like an adversarial DM style to me. Trustworthy vs untrustworthy groups? Making decisions based on what you think is justified for the character, not what the character's creator thinks? Measuring response times to gauge "honesty"?

I apologize but I do not understand how I am miscommunicating this badly.

1) I fail to see how being a very permissive DM playing with friends that have a deep level of trust is somehow an "adversarial DM style"
2) I explicitly stated that dips ought to be judged from the position that has the most information. Aka the player doing the dipping.
3) I was asked how a DM could tell the difference (despite saying the judgement ought to take place in the player's head). To answer such a question I needed to cover all the bases (groups with a deep level of trust) and (groups that do not have a deep level of trust). Measuring response times is a method of detection that the second type of group could use to make up for not being like the first group.



Why? Why do all this when multiclassing is specifically allowed (and allowed for!) by the rules with no penalties except XP ones? Why engender this atmosphere of purely subjective restrictions and limitations on character abilities, when the class level system is modular precisely so that people can combine classes in interesting ways?

4) Why? Because what I have described was more permissive than what you described. And that's saying something. I truly do apologize for somehow miscommunicating. I do not see where I went wrong in my description.

[Juntao112]

However if you and your character disagreed about what you wanted to do, then no.
If my character disagreed with me about what I wanted to do, I would get my head examined.

[OldTrees1]

If my character disagreed with me about what I wanted to do, I would get my head examined.

Have you never made a character vivid enough that you can't "justify" it doing just anything you wanted to do? Never a character that demands it remains consistent even if it would be easier for you if it contradicted itself just this once? Never had a "no matter how much I want this character to do X, that just isn't in character"?

[Juntao112]

Have you never made a character vivid enough that you can't "justify" it doing just anything you wanted to do? Never a character that demands it remains consistent even if it would be easier for you if it contradicted itself just this once? Never had a "no matter how much I want this character to do X, that just isn't in character"?

No, because I am great at creative writing and roleplaying.
I make complex, multifaceted characters, not robots or cardboard cutouts.

[OldTrees1]

No, because I am great at creative writing and roleplaying.
I make complex, multifaceted characters, not robots or cardboard cutouts.

Strange. Because I was first introduced to this concept by an author. The author said that characters gain a life of their own and sometimes they have had to rewrite a section of a book because they realized that it wasn't quite true to the character.

[Juntao112]

Strange. Because I was first introduced to this concept by an author. The author said that characters gain a life of their own and sometimes they have had to rewrite a section of a book because they realized that it wasn't quite true to the character.
Was it a good author?

[Pickford]

Strange. Because I was first introduced to this concept by an author. The author said that characters gain a life of their own and sometimes they have had to rewrite a section of a book because they realized that it wasn't quite true to the character.

I think Juntao112 is saying that he could figure out a way to get from point A to point B...it might be incredibly circuitous, but he could do it.

[OldTrees1]

Was it a good author?

Good but not great. They solved the situation by using a different (more in character) path to get the character to the desire conclusion. But that was a longer path that required more effort on the author's part. (Like what Pickford said)

[Juntao112]

For my part, I live in a world where devout pacifists have gone on to fight in combat (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/york.html), good men will commit crimes because they have orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment), and Supeman has turned evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Lords).

[OldTrees1]

For my part, I live in a world where devout pacifists have gone on to fight in combat (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/york.html), good men will commit crimes because they have orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment), and Supeman has turned evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Lords).

True but the character didn't switch like a lightbulb. The environment/events caused character development which resulted in the different behaviour. Changing behavior without character development is not something I think it realistic.

[Amphetryon]

True but the character didn't switch like a lightbulb. The environment/events caused character development which resulted in the different behaviour. Changing behavior without character development is not something I think it realistic.

Please tell me you're not arguing for realism in a game with dragons, zombies, and everyone being able to get raised from the dead, given a few thousand GP.

[ArcturusV]

Well, lets be fair, Superman was always evil to start with. :smallwink: Effectively God, uses his power for his petty amusement, not really solving problems because he wants the praise and adoration of a clueless public, being a willing accomplice to evil.

I've heard a lot of people though put forth the line that their characters are somehow separate entities from them, and they "have no control" over what their character may do in a story.

... I don't personally subscribe to it that much. Because unless your character is very shallow, there's depth that allows for change and flexibility. Like myself in life. I'd say "You know what, I hate musicals. I'll never watch them. Gods it's stupid to watch people bust out in song and dance all across the city at the drop of a hat over the most innane things..."

... then I'll go watch Music and Lyrics because a girl I was dating wanted to see it... and I'll like it. This happens. Even though it's "not in character" for me based on the shallow descriptions given earlier.

So usually when people say things like that they can't control their characters, or something 'isn't in character' for them in that regard it's because they have shallow characters, not deep ones. And they just don't want to admit that it's a shallow character.

Granted, probably not always the case. But particularly when it comes to RPGs, that's what I see.

[Rubik]

... I don't personally subscribe to it that much. Because unless your character is very shallow, there's depth that allows for change and flexibility. Like myself in life. I'd say "You know what, I hate musicals. I'll never watch them. Gods it's stupid to watch people bust out in song and dance all across the city at the drop of a hat over the most innane things..."

... then I'll go watch Music and Lyrics because a girl I was dating wanted to see it... and I'll like it. This happens. Even though it's "not in character" for me based on the shallow descriptions given earlier. I think you'd like the Buffy episode Once More, With Feeling. Yes, it's a musical. But it's dementedly clever as to why it's a musical.

Plus, c'mon, it's Buffy!

[ArcturusV]

Someday I may actually get around to seeing that series. I think I only ever watched one episode. Liked the witch girl as she seemed to be one of the only smart ones on there. "Demon attack? Well instead of ram my head against a brick wall trying to kung fu fight it, I'mma go to the library, figure out what it is, and it's exact weakness so I can just magic it into oblivion.... what? Was that too efficient for you?"

[Juntao112]

Please tell me you're not arguing for realism in a game with dragons, zombies, and everyone being able to get raised from the dead, given a few thousand GP.

I think human nature should still be recognizable even in such a game - for humans, at least.

[Amphetryon]

I think human nature should still be recognizable even in such a game - for humans, at least.

Okay, so no Human Clerics or Wizards, or other practitioners of D&D magic in your campaigns?

[Juntao112]

Okay, so no Human Clerics or Wizards, or other practitioners of D&D magic in your campaigns?

What do the words "human nature" mean to you?

[ArcturusV]

Heck, it's the real reason why in Fantasy Settings humans are the power faction. Not the usual "because they breed faster" excuse (If that wast he case, Gobbos would run everything). It's because it provides a cultural base line with creatures we understand the motivations, thoughts, and feelings of. So we can look at how an elf relates to a human, and go "Aaaah, that's what elves are like. Aloof douchebags who thumb their nose at everyone else". :smallwink:

[Rubik]

Heck, it's the real reason why in Fantasy Settings humans are the power faction. Not the usual "because they breed faster" excuse (If that wast he case, Gobbos would run everything). It's because it provides a cultural base line with creatures we understand the motivations, thoughts, and feelings of. So we can look at how an elf relates to a human, and go "Aaaah, that's what elves are like. Aloof douchebags who thumb their nose at everyone else". :smallwink:Elf: "As an elf, I would take exception to that, if it weren't true."

[Juntao112]

Heck, it's the real reason why in Fantasy Settings humans are the power faction. Not the usual "because they breed faster" excuse (If that wast he case, Gobbos would run everything). It's because it provides a cultural base line with creatures we understand the motivations, thoughts, and feelings of. So we can look at how an elf relates to a human, and go "Aaaah, that's what elves are like. Aloof douchebags who thumb their nose at everyone else". :smallwink:

I think you misspelled "French". :smallwink:

[Amphetryon]

What do the words "human nature" mean to you?

The distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, independent of cultural influence. (The preceding is cribbed from Wikipedia, but consistent with what the words mean "to me.")

If you find spellcasting to be a part of that definition, then your experiences are wildly different than mine. If that is not what you mean by "human nature," then what, exactly, is it that you mean that would include magic and zombies, yet preclude people changing the focus of their education and/or career path during the course of their lives?

[Rubik]

The distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, independent of cultural influence. (The preceding is cribbed from Wikipedia, but consistent with what the words mean "to me.")

If you find spellcasting to be a part of that definition, then your experiences are wildly different than mine. If that is not what you mean by "human nature," then what, exactly, is it that you mean that would include magic and zombies, yet preclude people changing the focus of their education and/or career path during the course of their lives?The only reason it doesn't include magic is because magic doesn't exist. If it did, then it totally would. It's not like human culture doesn't include attempts at magical traditions, rites of supposedly supernatural significance, and doomed-to-failure-because-there's-no-such-thing-as-magic necromantic rituals, after all.

[Amphetryon]

The only reason it doesn't include magic is because magic doesn't exist. If it did, then it totally would. It's not like human culture doesn't include attempts at magical traditions, rites of supposedly supernatural significance, and doomed-to-failure-because-there's-no-such-thing-as-magic necromantic rituals, after all.

Do you consider that "only reason" to be significant in precluding it from the human condition, as defined above? I sure do.

[Juntao112]

If you find spellcasting to be a part of that definition, then your experiences are wildly different than mine.
Stop oppressing my culture. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html)


If that is not what you mean by "human nature," then what, exactly, is it that you mean that would include magic and zombies, yet preclude people changing the focus of their education and/or career path during the course of their lives?
At this point, you have lost me, as I have never said anything to indicate that people changing focus is against human nature.

[Rubik]

Do you consider that "only reason" to be significant in precluding it from the human condition, as defined above? I sure do.Considering the extreme frequency of cults who believe in the supernatural, even in today's modern world, the belief in and desire for the supernatural shows that humans have an affinity for and drive to command magical ability.

If that's not part of human nature, I'm not sure what is.

[OldTrees1]

Please tell me you're not arguing for realism in a game with dragons, zombies, and everyone being able to get raised from the dead, given a few thousand GP.

Substitute the word Verisimilitude if that makes you feel better. I used the word realism merely because some of the examples were IRL examples and I was too rushed for time to spell Verisimilitude.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So usually when people say things like that they can't control their characters, or something 'isn't in character' for them in that regard it's because they have shallow characters, not deep ones. And they just don't want to admit that it's a shallow character.

IME, when someone says "It's what my character would do" they're doing what they wanted to do in the first place, they're just using "roleplaying" as an excuse to be a jackass.

[ArcturusV]

Also true. But author insert like that tends to also be viewed as shallow. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's Roleplaying, it's often an escapist wish fulfillment. But it sucks when someone is ruining the game as wish fulfillment/escapism then trying to pull this RPer "Well that's what my character would do" justification.

[Sewercop]

IME, when someone says "It's what my character would do" they're doing what they wanted to do in the first place, they're just using "roleplaying" as an excuse to be a jackass.

I disagree. Sometimes characters take on a life that is very different then what the concept of the character was. In our group we often wait with elaborate backstories untill we have played 2 or 3 times to get a feel of the character.

Of course, there will often be an idea or some like that. But for us atleast it is easier to come up with it after you got a feel for the char. Of course this wont work for all.

I have had characters die because they would stop and fight off attackers to let the others survive. That **** sucks when you dont really want to call it quits with a character. But in hindsight, it for me gives the char a good death instead of feeling false for the rest of the time i play it. If i "break away" from what it would do.
¨
imo dips are a way to build a concept for characters.
Flesh them out.
Fluff should be up to the players, unless its hardcoded into the game and setting. aka paladins,purple knights of cormyr etc.

If i want my fighter to be a sidestepping badass, ill dip that specialist wizard and get short range immediate teleport. And ill ask my gm to refluff it.

[OldTrees1]

I have had characters die because they would stop and fight off attackers to let the others survive. That **** sucks when you dont really want to call it quits with a character. But in hindsight, it for me gives the char a good death instead of feeling false for the rest of the time i play it. If i "break away" from what it would do.
¨
imo dips are a way to build a concept for characters.
Flesh them out.
Fluff should be up to the players, unless its hardcoded into the game and setting. aka paladins,purple knights of cormyr etc.

If i want my fighter to be a sidestepping badass, ill dip that specialist wizard and get short range immediate teleport. And ill ask my gm to refluff it.
Sewercop said my position better than I did. Thank you.