On "hodgepodges" of classes

[rrwoods]

As far as rogues go here is my standard non-initiator Dex guy: rogue1/ swashbuckler1/ hit and run fighter1 (dotu)/ lion totem barbarian1/ rogue3/ swashbuckler 13/ nightsong enforcer1/ spellthief1

Damn, I'm a DM myself and I would never allow this hodgepodge of classes. 8 classes bigods ...
My opinion is pretty well summed up by this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444433-Optimization-Treatise-The-Gospel-of-Everything-Goes


This discussion has nothing to do with casters
This has *everything* to do with casters. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. Casters don't have to multiclass to be effective. Most mundanes do.


Wrong. Grow up.
"Grow up" indeed. I'm done here.

[Norin]

Ok!

Not sure what else to say here. :smallsmile:

[LoyalPaladin]

We can talk optimization and the vast gap in power between mundane characters and spellcasters all day long, but unfortunately a 20 Wizard will be tiers above any combination of mundane classes, even if that means 20 classes by level 20.

It's an unfortunate fact that we've all learned to live with.

http://oi49.tinypic.com/24ctzi8.jpg

[Xervous]

As a highlight of the key points warranting discussion there's a few places to look at. The first being how Caster 20 is both a strong build and, in varying degrees, hard to permanently screw up if you pick subpar options. Contrast this with most Mundane 20 builds where a lot of things will hinge on proper feat/level selection (permanent choices) to produce a serviceable character if such a thing is possible for the given class. Then, in the realm of building characters towards a concept, we have the stunning diversity of dip happy builds that range from less useful than fighter 20 to highly versatile builds with functions both in and out of combat. Some players/GMs express an aversion to build stubs containing numerous classes, citing various reasons such as "These always turn out to be useless bums the other players have to lug around" or "I won't tolerate this level of munchkinry at my table".

In short, it's a collision of expectations, perceptions and standards over different build archetypes.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are also those that object on role-playing terms. They don't buy into that idea of classes as a metagame construct, so when they look at a Barbarian/Scout/Cleric/Fighter/Highland Stalker they're seeing five distinct identities smashed into one character. Five ideas in one character, as opposed to one idea in five classes.

[Flickerdart]

There's no reason a character cannot have 8 classes. Or 20 classes for that matter. We are fortunate to have a system that allows very granular character creation, and is able to express concepts in more than one way. For example, say you want a character who is a reckless warrior that puts hurting the enemy over his own well-being. You can do any of the following to represent it:

Take a level of Barbarian for Rage
Take the Vulnerable flaw and use the feat slot on a combat-related feat
Take Power Attack and Shock Trooper
Take no particular options and just charge in every combat


It is not the DM's place to decide how a player wants to embody a particular trait within his character.

[Triskavanski]

I tend to find it weird myself that usually the ones who complain about mechanics the most are the ones who try to be "I'm in this more for the roleplay, not rollplaying." And its these people who look at a complicated build as a collection of weird parts and that it doesn't make any sense to them that someone could be so many classes.

Basically they fail to see the character behind the mechanics.

I've had lots of characters like this. Though I'll admit the one up there at the top is one of the most extreme examples I've seen.

Had a game where someone was building a drow rogue going into assassin. He was heavily focused on range, where he was always using a crossbow. Spent all his feats on skill up feats and combat reflexes. And only after a while of playing did he get rapid reload.

I asked him why he's got combat reflexes and he was like "Why not?" Then there was some sort of discussion on how he hates power gamers and gets mad at people who power game in his games that he's running.

[Telonius]

Part of the problem is that (for at least a few of the classes in the PHB) sometimes the mechanics are set up to reinforce story elements. Let's say you're a Ranger 3, and want to take a level in Druid. Seems pretty straightforward. But let's say the Ranger has been out in the field and has only been fighting monsters since level 1. Who exactly is teaching him to speak Druidic? Similar situation with Cleric, Paladin, Monk, and Wizard. These are classes that come with a built-in backstory: training and acceptance by some other group or entity, or a large amount of independent study. Some people (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html) are very resistant to the idea that you can get this in the middle of an adventure with a minimum of training. The really unfortunate thing is that, of those classes, you have a split of the very best and very worst in the PHB. The more naturally-granular classes - Ranger, Barbarian, Rogue, Fighter, Bard, and Sorcerer - are more in the mid-range of power. (Except for Sorcerer, which can still break the game, but you have to have a lot more system mastery to do it.)

Personally I ascribe to the "granular" idea; it allows people to bring a much wider variety of character ideas to life, and (for the reasons already mentioned in the thread) benefits the sorts of characters that need it most.

[Flickerdart]

But let's say the Ranger has been out in the field and has only been fighting monsters since level 1. Who exactly is teaching him to speak Druidic?
Divine inspiration. Off-screen traveling scholar. He discovers secret Druidic tablets and manages to learn the language off of them.


Similar situation with Cleric, Paladin, Monk, and Wizard. These are classes that come with a built-in backstory: training and acceptance by some other group or entity, or a large amount of independent study.
Clerics need not belong to a church, merely worship a god or ideal. Paladins need not belong to a church, merely uphold Law and Goodness. Monks need not belong to a monastery or have loads of training, and neither do wizards.

It's easy to shoot down any idea anybody has. A good DM says "okay, you want to take a level in druid, let's see how we can make this happen."

[rrwoods]

"Let's see how we can make this happen" -- yes! That's my whole philosophy here.

I guess I'm not quite "done here", heh.

[Zombulian]

There are also those that object on role-playing terms. They don't buy into that idea of classes as a metagame construct, so when they look at a Barbarian/Scout/Cleric/Fighter/Highland Stalker they're seeing five distinct identities smashed into one character. Five ideas in one character, as opposed to one idea in five classes.

This.
This.
Exactly this.
At least in my experience, many of the issues I've come across with people objecting to extreme multiclassing is that the mindset they are in is more based around their idea that class = role (or even - heaven forbid - class = concept).

[Triskavanski]

Of course there is also..

"He knew Druidic the Whole time! cause he was a secret closet druid."

Monk - Really how many martial arts films/animes you watch where the main character has never really been in a fight themselves and suddenly develops rather rapidly in martial arts. I know a few where the character actually does have a teacher, a few others that they know martial arts the whole time, but Only now do they get serious.

[Flickerdart]

"He knew Druidic the Whole time! cause he was a secret closet druid."
What, these writings? No, it's the secret language that my childhood mentor Danny Druid taught me, shortly before he disappeared for some reason, and I never mentioned it until now because it never came up. Is it Druidic? Wow, I never knew.

[Necroticplague]

I tend to find it weird myself that usually the ones who complain about mechanics the most are the ones who try to be "I'm in this more for the roleplay, not rollplaying." And its these people who look at a complicated build as a collection of weird parts and that it doesn't make any sense to them that someone could be so many classes.

Basically they fail to see the character behind the mechanics.

I think that's a result of basic cause and effect. It's easy to complain about things you don't understand. So people who don't bother to examine the mechanics closely/who are too dense to understand them will be the ones to complain about it more. Similarly, we tend to pay more attention to confusing things. Thus, to these people, the complicated mechanics are what they'll naturally think of more than the elegant fluff that ties it together.

[Zombulian]

What, these writings? No, it's the secret language that my childhood mentor Danny Druid taught me, shortly before he disappeared for some reason, and I never mentioned it until now because it never came up. Is it Druidic? Wow, I never knew.

Hey wow!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KlLMlJ2tDkg

[Chronos]

There's even traditional support for the loads-of-multiclassing mundane character. The warrior who wanders the world picking up bits and pieces of all sorts of different fighting traditions is a staple of fiction.

But if it really bothers you, ask yourself this: Would it be unbalanced to homebrew a class that gets the first-level abilities of a barbarian at first level, and then gets the first-level abilities of a rogue at second level, and then the first-level abilities of a ranger at third level, and so on? Of course not. So just say that that homebrew class is what your character is, if you insist on sticking with a class.

[Troacctid]

I think that 3.5 naturally encourages this by frontloading so many of its classes, and I consider this to be a design flaw. I like multiclassing, but the system needs to be built with it in mind, and in that respect, offering obvious break points at low levels is a hallmark of poor class design. (Don't get me started on dead levels either; that's, like, unforgivable.)

Yeah, as a player, you should be expected to do what the system incentivizes you to do, and that's fine, but hodgepodges of classes aren't resonant or intuitive for most people, and I don't think the system should incentivize it.


"Let's see how we can make this happen" -- yes! That's my whole philosophy here.

I guess I'm not quite "done here", heh.

Of course you're not, or you wouldn't have started the thread in the first place. If you were done, you would have just walked away.

[Psyren]

I find hodgepodge/frankenstein builds distasteful/inelegant myself - but since I play Pathfinder and the opportunity cost for running them is higher there, I simply point out that whatever concept the player wanted to go with must have been worth the FCBs they were giving up.

If you want to disincentivize them in 3.5, I suggest backporting a similar favored class system, especially since this has the added side effect of abolishing those godawful XP penalties.

[squiggit]

I don't see why you'd want to discourage them. From an optimization perspective, it opens up options for a lot of characters and while you can do crazy things with it, you're still generally not hitting the ceiling with 'hodgepodges'.

From a roleplaying perspective, mixing and matching is often one of the best ways to explore a particular concept that isn't always well executed by a single class or class + PrC combo.


I'd say that the anti dipping and anti PrC nature of pathfinder is one of the game's biggest weaknesses and an over correction from 3.5

[rrwoods]

Of course you're not, or you wouldn't have started the thread in the first place. If you were done, you would have just walked away.
You got me -- I guess what I really meant by "I'm done here" is "this is all I have to say and anything else will just be a restatement in a different context".

It's true that the system doesn't make uberdipping intuitive. But that doesn't mean the DM needs to do even more to discourage it than the system already does. The whole "one idea in five classes" vs "five ideas in one character" is the crux of what I'm trying to say: a Monk/Psywar/Barb/Fighter/Warblade isn't any less "believable" than a Wizard, from an in-game standpoint. Sure, the system has spread your stuff across a zillion books in the first case, but if the player has the system mastery necessary to understand how a five-classed character interacts with a typical party, IMO the DM "should" be willing to accommodate insofar as that means reading the abilities the player will likely have and understanding how they'll interact with his campaign. This isn't any different from needing to read a Wizard's abilities and needing to understand how they will interact with his campaign -- in fact, the first is likely *easier* (as long as the player provides the text), since "a Wizard's abilities" is actually the "Spells" chapter from every book the DM allows (even if it's just core, that's a daunting task), and an uberdipped mundane's abilities are pretty fixed (usually).

What it comes down to is:
* character creation is a conversation (welcome to collaborative storytelling)
* class names aren't "ideas", characters are

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think that 3.5 naturally encourages this by frontloading so many of its classes, and I consider this to be a design flaw.
As someone who's done his share of homebrewing, I think it's an unavoidable consequence of being level-based. You want to give out trademark abilities as quickly as possible, because otherwise the class lacks identity. Imagine a Barbarian who didn't get Rage until 5th level Imagine playing one from level 1. To say nothing of abilities like Weapon Finesse that significantly change investment priorities when they come online. No, you NEED to get you key abilities as fast as possible so you can actually start playing your character concept. The possibility of dipping is an acceptable consequence. (And one that can be mitigated with well designed classes that function without needing the help)

[Psyren]

I don't see why you'd want to discourage them. From an optimization perspective, it opens up options for a lot of characters and while you can do crazy things with it, you're still generally not hitting the ceiling with 'hodgepodges'.

From a roleplaying perspective, mixing and matching is often one of the best ways to explore a particular concept that isn't always well executed by a single class or class + PrC combo.


I'd say that the anti dipping and anti PrC nature of pathfinder is one of the game's biggest weaknesses and an over correction from 3.5

I don't see how it's "anti-dipping and anti-PrC" though. If you bring those PrCs in from 3.5 you get all the same features you'd have gotten there, losing nothing. PF simply adds an extra reward if you go base class 20. Hell, the increased number of feats actually helps you, at least as far as qualifying goes.

I do agree that a dip-heavy build is the only way to represent certain concepts, but nothing is actually stopping you from doing that either.

[Flickerdart]

As someone who's done his share of homebrewing, I think it's an unavoidable consequence of being level-based. You want to give out trademark abilities as quickly as possible, because otherwise the class lacks identity. Imagine a Barbarian who didn't get Rage until 5th level Imagine playing one from level 1. To say nothing of abilities like Weapon Finesse that significantly change investment priorities when they come online. No, you NEED to get you key abilities as fast as possible so you can actually start playing your character concept. The possibility of dipping is an acceptable consequence. (And one that can be mitigated with well designed classes that function without needing the help)

The problem is less "iconic abilities come online too soon" and more "iconic abilities come online and then you get nothing." Contrast classes such as the rogue or ranger, who get powerful special abilities for sticking to their class into the late levels, and paladins, who get bupkis.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem is less "iconic abilities come online too soon" and more "iconic abilities come online and then you get nothing." Contrast classes such as the rogue or ranger, who get powerful special abilities for sticking to their class into the late levels, and paladins, who get bupkis.
I agree- hence my final sentence that well-designed classes can mitigate the issue. (It's possible that we both have the same point).

[Troacctid]

As someone who's done his share of homebrewing, I think it's an unavoidable consequence of being level-based. You want to give out trademark abilities as quickly as possible, because otherwise the class lacks identity. Imagine a Barbarian who didn't get Rage until 5th level Imagine playing one from level 1. To say nothing of abilities like Weapon Finesse that significantly change investment priorities when they come online. No, you NEED to get you key abilities as fast as possible so you can actually start playing your character concept. The possibility of dipping is an acceptable consequence. (And one that can be mitigated with well designed classes that function without needing the help)
But you can't put actual everything in the first two or three levels of a twenty-level class, like with the Barbarian. You need to have something appealing at every level, and you need to balance that appeal against the opportunity cost that multiclassing represents.

5th Edition does this very well. Look at its version of the Rogue. Level 1 is great. You get sneak attack and expertise, both very nice abilities. So you could take a 1-level dip. But then level 2 offers cunning action, which is great, so maybe you want a 2-level dip. But then you're looking at level 3, which has an archetype feature and an additional sneak attack die, both very appealing. And once you have 3 levels, you probably want a 4th for the ability score increase. And once you have 4 levels, that 5th level looks pretty enticing with uncanny dodge and a third sneak attack die...and so on. That's what a class designed around multiclassing should look like: no matter how many levels you have, it should always feel good.


It's true that the system doesn't make uberdipping intuitive. But that doesn't mean the DM needs to do even more to discourage it than the system already does. The whole "one idea in five classes" vs "five ideas in one character" is the crux of what I'm trying to say: a Monk/Psywar/Barb/Fighter/Warblade isn't any less "believable" than a Wizard, from an in-game standpoint.

It may not be less believable from an in-game perspective, but it is definitely harder to grok from the perspective of someone looking at the character sheet. A class's name is one of the most powerful tools it has for defining its identity, because it represents an iconic concept that people intuitively understand. Take that away and you make it a lot harder to "get" what the character is all about. No, the DM doesn't need to police this, but the game designers should have.

(Incidentally, I believe many people are turned off of psionics for much the same reason. Everyone understands an Elf Wizard or an Orc Barbarian, but a Xeph Wilder or Elan Ardent sounds like gibberish.)

[John Longarrow]

For a different perspective, I always have seen the different classes as being closer to professions in real life. They say little about who you are but do give you a set of skills you've either already learned or are learning. For a lot of younger players getting your head around the concept of multiple careers is often difficult. For those of us who've had them it comes very naturally and we realize how they enhance our abilities.

I'd have to say my professional career would be a veritable hodge-podge of 'classes' if real life were a game.

[Triskavanski]

Yeah, it helps though when all of what you want is in a single class. Which is sadly, typically what happens with spell casters vs mundane.

Like if you want to play a rogue, and you wanna be good with skill tricks and stealth and stuff. You start off taking rogue, but then you gotta put one level dip into Shadow dancer for the "got to be good at stealth" thing. Then there is your skill tricks you've gotten. Gotta be good at those too. And just rogue by himself doesn't really do it. So gotta take uncanny trickster. Maybe you're trying to be jack the ripper? Well the invisible blade could help with that. Shoot! Not enough feats. Gotta take two levels of fighter to get a few more feats. Oh and weapon finese. Maybe a level of swashbuckler would help?
Maybe you're something of a count of Mounte Cristo like character? Thats why you're running around with all these knives of course. You've been wronged! Well, here is avenging Executioner to fist into your build too!

Finally, you've got a guy who has been wronged in someway, is really good with knives he can pull out of anywhere, with some performance skills to boot! He can also easily do that creepy thing where he steps into a shadows of Waterdeep and disappear. For there's no place like Waterdeep.

http://elitere.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sweeney-Todd-Johnny-Depp.jpg

[John Longarrow]

So your taking either a couple levels in expert or human paragon so you can make sure profession barber stays as one of your class skills???

[Triskavanski]

Yeah, probably would have to do that too, though Able Learner might cover for you there.

[Chronos]

Eh, almost all classes get Profession, anyway.

[Cosi]

TL;DR - Multiclassing is bad because it costs you high level abilities. Mundanes multiclass because they don't get high level abilities. The solution to multiclassing (in so far as it is a problem) is to give mundanes high level abilities.


I find hodgepodge/frankenstein builds distasteful/inelegant myself - but since I play Pathfinder and the opportunity cost for running them is higher there, I simply point out that whatever concept the player wanted to go with must have been worth the FCBs they were giving up.

I don't think that's true. The reason people jump out of martial classes early is because those classes never get high level abilities. Unless PF fixed that issue since I stopped caring about their game, I don't think that incentive is gone.

Also, I'm going to echo people saying that if your class concept is best captured by several classes, I don't see why that should be penalized. Especially when you consider that some multi-classed concepts will eventually get single classes (i.e. Fighter/Wizard -> Duskblade), it becomes a very arbitrary way of setting things up.


But you can't put actual everything in the first two or three levels of a twenty-level class, like with the Barbarian.

Yes you can.

Or rather, the problem isn't with giving all the abilities in two or three levels. It's with the idea that every class needs to be twenty levels long. What abilities is a Barbarian supposed to get after "rage" and "some nature-y noncombat shtick"? What high level abilities is he going to get?

Some Barbarians are going to want a savage horde. Some Barbarians are going to want to Hulk out when raging. Some are going to want animal powers. And some aren't going to want those things. If you want Barbarian to go to twenty, it's going to need to be little more than a massive pile of ACFs.


You need to have something appealing at every level, and you need to balance that appeal against the opportunity cost that multiclassing represents.

You (and most people in this thread) are forgetting the other cost of multiclassing: high level abilities. The reasons casters don't multiclass isn't because they have good class features (for example, the Cleric gets literally no class features after first level). It's because they have high level abilities they won't get if they multiclass.

If you want people to stick with Barbarian, you need to give Barbarians abilities people care about when the party is raiding the Palace of Burning Ice or defeating demons on Mount Chaining.

Otherwise, people are going to voltron together abilities into something vaguely good enough (for example, Horizon Trippers), then fall behind when their build stops hanging together.

[John Longarrow]

Cosi,

By saying casters don't multi-class, I'm guessing you mean they only go into prestige classes that advance casting?

[Triskavanski]

High level abilities are great and all.. But they aren't something that would make someone not multiclass all the time.

Say you had a character who had two class features in the first four levels, then 15 levels of nothing. Finally at level 20 you get an insanely awesome super megacool ability. The class gains low skill points, low HP, few class skills. But those first two abilities are pretty awesome by themselves.

You're not really losing anything by multiclassing out, despite how awesome that 20th level ability is. Cause You're only ever going to use it for a few sessions if you're lucky to get that far. Especially since this class has no other class features. (Or it might have them, but they are so utterly terrible that they might as well not even exist.)

Also if you game is going to go into the epic levels.. You don't stop gaining abilities at level 20. Every class level still often will give you a lot more abilities. Only two things stop at epic levels. Bab and base Saves.

[tiercel]

"Hodgepodges" are cool when a clever use of disparate elements is combined into a build design that creates a particular character specialty.

"Hodgepodges" are less cool as a transparent grab for random front-loaded power-ups that create a character who is strictly, mechanically speaking, more powerful than Base Class 20 (caster or otherwise) but to no real theme or specialty other than MORE POWER. (Even this depends a bit on what we are optimizing - it makes more sense to "power up" a Fighter for its own sake than a Wizard, but even a powerup should probably, at least in many games, come with its own story.)

Put another way, it really is Stormwind Fallacy to say that a "hodgepodge" is just a mess that precludes roleplaying, when the system mastery is used to put together a set of abilities around a unifying character concept.

On the other hand, it is a fallacious use of Stormwind Fallacy to say that a "hodgepodge" is always justified and never precludes roleplaying.

But this comes down to the usual arguments and even platitudes about optimization levels in an actual game. How combat-focused, how RP-heavy do the DM and the players want the game to be? Are the players at roughly equivalent optimization levels (or if not, are the optimizers at least not outmoding the rest of the party), and are the players and DM at roughly equivalent optimization levels?

Are people having fun?

I'm not going to sneer at a guy in my group for playing Caster 3/PrC 3/Other PrC 1/Other Other Prc 2/Master of Plumbing 3/Basketweaving Spell Focuser 2/Spellslinger 1/Slingspeller 1 or for playing Wizard 16, if the game is fun. If the game's not fun, the levels he chose to take are probably not the primary problem.

[yellowrocket]

With age and understanding comes a better grasp of why adults want to multi class. Kids do it because it sounds cool. I want to do all of these things that you can't fit in one class. Adults do it for the math of class abilities and for flavor. Doing it for flavor may be even more important because there's a chance that to do it they are giving something up to make a better cooperative story.

In the end, for me, that's what role playing is about. It's not a game of rocket tag or an exercise in tactical operations. It's why I gave the one kid that wanted to play a paladin in a group with 2 sorcerers and a wizard a gestalt paladin/fighter with the feats from both classes. A they needed someone to hit things hard at level 5 and b why shouldn't the one person who learned to fight be damn good at it? So she is for story reasons as much as the math.

[rrwoods]

If the game's not fun, the levels he chose to take are probably not the primary problem.
This times infinity.

A build using a million classes might be hard to read and understand, which I guess is a point against allowing them (but meh, you're the DM, *talk* with your players!). But having understood the build, if it's *fun* for *everyone* who gives a flying **** how many class names are in it?

[Warrnan]

Widely acknowledged fact: our magically inclined adventurers enjoy a great deal of power. For example, A wizard could be insanely powerful with no other classes or just one prestige class.

Mundanes classes sadly do not have this luxury of elegance and simplicity sometimes. Anything a "muggle" must learn or do to become "worth his weight" in an adventuring party is permissible and should be encouraged.

Many times roleplayers believe that mechanics are fully tied to the lore or background text that the game designers wrote with the class. However flavor text is fully mutable as long as you don't change the mechanics you are staying with in the rules.

You can roleplay a paladin while taking levels of cleric and no levels of paladin. You can play a "ninja" with only levels of rogue and swashbuckler.

Roleplaying is about freedom to explore your character and develop in any direction.

[John Longarrow]

I've been working out a very fun villain that would be a 'hodgepodge".

Chazra (Female Drow) was born to servants of a great house, but not a blood member of the house. Due to her low birth she learned early the arts of diplomacy, a little arcane magic, and the value of being an entertainer (bard). After years of service as a tool of her patron family she was eventually promoted to the status of emissary and taught the weapons of war (Marshall). Desiring to further her own station, Chazra befriended one of the slaves, a spell steeler who stole divine power from the gods to serve the house.

Her house came into open conflict with several other houses when its matron mothers' plans became known. Out of the ruins Chazra escaped to make her own way and establish her own base of power.

Her level progression is Bard(1)-Bard(2)-Marshall(1)-Bard(3)-Bard(4)-Ur Priest(1)-Ur Priest(2)-Mystic Theurge(1)-Mystic Theurge(2). 2 base classes+2 prestige classes in 9 levels, but all directed towards a potent villain. She's currently able to toss 4th level clerical spells and 2nd level bard spells. She's very persuasive and can fake being a priestess of Lolth well enough that no one questions her. Course most clerics don't use mirror image or alter self, so she does have a few neat tricks up her sleeves...

[Hecuba]

This always seems to me like it is most appropriate in a kitchen sink setting. I don't mind those for kick in the door play.

In general, though, I prefer tailored settings. And in my experience, tailored settings generally leave the realm of "classes as metagame constricts" and enter the realm of "classes are tied to RP elements of the setting."

That said, when playing at a group that is tailoring a setting like that, I find it entirety reasonable to turn such a build (perhaps with save/BAB smoothing & ability spacing) into a homebrew class that can be worked into the setting.

If the setting is well developed, it might be politic to wait for the next one, but generally I find that kind of extremely easy homebrew can be a way to help add character to such a setting.

[Pluto!]

Treating class mechanics as representations of specific archetypes does not reflect ignorance or reflect an inability to comprehend that multiclass monstrosities may have relatively cohesive abilities.

I don't use a class system accidentally. I run a class-based system when I want to push games playing heavily off archetypes and tropes. Treating classes as an awkward point system is an unnecessarily time consuming and roundabout way of achieving a goal that point-based games make easy, and it undermines the reasons I have for selecting a class-based game like D&D to begin with.

[Snowbluff]

Here's the problem: being able to make those "hodgepodges" is the best thing ever.

A wizard can pretty much only make himself worse out of side of PrCs. A "mundane" style build has so many options to mix an match features. IN fact, later sub systems in 3.5 have this in mind, like Incarnum and Initiators.

[TheIronGolem]

Treating class mechanics as representations of specific archetypes does not reflect ignorance or reflect an inability to comprehend that multiclass monstrosities may have relatively cohesive abilities.

No, but treating them as an obligation to a particular archetype tends to. Sure, Rangers are modeled off of Aragorn, but that doesn't mean that taking a couple of Ranger levels means I should have to be Aragorn.



I don't use a class system accidentally. I run a class-based system when I want to push games playing heavily off archetypes and tropes. Treating classes as an awkward point system is an unnecessarily time consuming and roundabout way of achieving a goal that point-based games make easy, and it undermines the reasons I have for selecting a class-based game like D&D to begin with.

OK, cool. Tropes and archetypes are useful tools. But what about people who don't want to play one of the archetypes you had in mind? What about people who do want to play one of those archetypes, but find the "default" expression of that archetype in the class system inadequate and prefer to express it another way?

And if you run a class-based system for the sake of pushing stock archetypes, why the heck would you choose a class-based system that is expressly designed to give players the ability to, as you say, "treat classes as an awkward point system"?

[John Longarrow]

I don't use a class system accidentally. I run a class-based system when I want to push games playing heavily off archetypes and tropes. Treating classes as an awkward point system is an unnecessarily time consuming and roundabout way of achieving a goal that point-based games make easy, and it undermines the reasons I have for selecting a class-based game like D&D to begin with.

As a player, I've found most of the literary archetypes that D&D uses to be very limiting. In a pure hack and slash game without any emphasis on character development OR in a game where no one wishes to invest heavily in character development they work well. This is one reason most video games use this as a standard. In a game where I am developing a personality, back story, goals and desires I wish to be able to bring the archetype I desire to life, not be limited by static class structures.

Most often this will occur when you meet anyone who desires to play the classic 'Elf' from D&D. Not advanced, not basic, but blue book. The armored caster who mixes sword play with spells. This cannot be done by standard classes as none of the 'gish' designs match plate armor with fireball.

[yellowrocket]

Most often this will occur when you meet anyone who desires to play the classic 'Elf' from D&D. Not advanced, not basic, but blue book. The armored caster who mixes sword play with spells. This cannot be done by standard classes as none of the 'gish' designs match plate armor with fireball.

That's funny cause my elf is a short sword/longbow user attached to nature who wears leather armor. Easily done with a cleric with the plant domain. The second one is up to your image. Mine would be healing as that's what I've read them being about in a lot of lit growing up nature and healing the planet they're on.

Now is cleric the obvious choice for that archetype? Probably not to someone with little to know system knowledge. Yet I made it work easily enough in a single class. Are they going to be a fearsome warrior orythical spell caster with those 4 themes continued through character development? Maybe not, but using that chassis they'll still contribute to your average party.

I remember an any concept idea as a cleric thread awhile back. While it's probably the opposite of what people who are dramatically multi cladding are trying to do, which is build development as they go, if you're starting at certain points you might just be better off as a cleric with the right domains and spell selection.

[icefractal]

I think that 3.5 naturally encourages this by frontloading so many of its classes, and I consider this to be a design flaw. I like multiclassing, but the system needs to be built with it in mind, and in that respect, offering obvious break points at low levels is a hallmark of poor class design. (Don't get me started on dead levels either; that's, like, unforgivable.)

Yeah, as a player, you should be expected to do what the system incentivizes you to do, and that's fine, but hodgepodges of classes aren't resonant or intuitive for most people, and I don't think the system should incentivize it.Sort of this. In 3.5 as it is, I support whatever class combination produces a reasonable result. Which for martial characters often includes a fair number of classes.

At the same time, I feel like in an ideal system, Rogue 3/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Ranger 2/Warblade 1 (in that order) shouldn't be a big difference in power from Fighter 3/Warblade 1/Barbarian 3/Rogue 2. Or from Fighter 9, for that matter. And that a "parallel" multiclassing scheme like Legend uses is versatile enough without micromanaging your class levels.

[JyP]

I remember an any concept idea as a cleric thread awhile back. While it's probably the opposite of what people who are dramatically multi cladding are trying to do, which is build development as they go, if you're starting at certain points you might just be better off as a cleric with the right domains and spell selection.
I remember I did this with AD&D2 Player's Option: Spells & Magic - you could do any mundane class with cleric basis, and better. I did monk & planescape flavored characters this way.

what struck me recently is that we have prestige classes to advance priestly & wizardly spellcasting at the same level - but not so much to combine fighter & rogue (advancing both in fighter feats and sneak attack at the same level). As if we need to respect some kind of equilibrium for mundane classes, and not so much for spellcasters - as the other side of the coin is no access to 9th level spells with this kind of multiclassing, whereas a fighterrogue would miss.. 1d6 or 2d6 of sneak attack or 1 or 2 fighter feats over fighter 20 or rogue 20 (and rogue special abilities over level 10 obviously).

[Pluto!]

As a player, I've found most of the literary archetypes that D&D uses to be very limiting.


OK, cool. Tropes and archetypes are useful tools. But what about people who don't want to play one of the archetypes you had in mind? What about people who do want to play one of those archetypes, but find the "default" expression of that archetype in the class system inadequate and prefer to express it another way?
For concepts that can't be satisfactorily enacted by existing classes, I prefer to modify classes themselves or homebrew to digging through books to sew a bunch of mechanics together. That both lets us work a character's abilities and game lore around whatever concept the player likes and avoids all the mechanical dead-ends and fluff tangles that come from conjoining a bunch of classes together. Not to mention that binding yourself to D&D's level progression sequencing hardly less limiting than binding yourself to a specific class or two.

Plus, it lets us easily isolate and tweak the abilities that a character will have in terms of power level and mechanical depth.


And if you run a class-based system for the sake of pushing stock archetypes, why the heck would you choose a class-based system that is expressly designed to give players the ability to, as you say, "treat classes as an awkward point system"?
I don't think 3e actually is designed for that. The much-hated multiclass penalty rules, the hundreds of pages of game lore associations with various rules, and the lofty expectations of training and secret organizations that the DMG gives PrCs all contradict the attitude that this specific forum interprets classes with.

But you're also right. Which is a part of why my 3e library is down to 3 books and Castles and Crusades and 13th Age have been getting a lot more playtime lately. I think they do D&D better than 3e does.

[Triskavanski]

I personally do like awkward point system. It allows for a lot more interesting mechanics, as opposed to a normal point system, where I tended to find that most abilities in them are pretty grey-ish bland muush.

Dont' get me wrong, those systems can be fun, but well since anybody can take the abilities and they tend to have very little pre-reqs and other lock downs that DnD has, you tend to have less Oh! Thats awesome! Abilities and tend to have more abilities that are very close to each other in form and function.

[Chronos]

Quoth tiercel:

"Hodgepodges" are less cool as a transparent grab for random front-loaded power-ups that create a character who is strictly, mechanically speaking, more powerful than Base Class 20 (caster or otherwise) but to no real theme or specialty other than MORE POWER.
I maintain that this literally never happens. If you don't have a unifying theme, then you will end up with less power than a single-classed character. Can you provide a counter-example?


Quoth Cosi:

The reasons casters don't multiclass isn't because they have good class features (for example, the Cleric gets literally no class features after first level).
What? Of course they do. A third-level cleric gains the class features of Cure Moderate Wounds, and Hold Person, and Silence. A fifth-level cleric gains the class features of Glyph of Warding, and Prayer, and Dispel Magic, and so on. Clerics have so many class features that they couldn't even fit them all in the cleric write-up, and had to give them a large chunk of an entire chapter.

[Cosi]

What? Of course they do. A third-level cleric gains the class features of Cure Moderate Wounds, and Hold Person, and Silence. A fifth-level cleric gains the class features of Glyph of Warding, and Prayer, and Dispel Magic, and so on. Clerics have so many class features that they couldn't even fit them all in the cleric write-up, and had to give them a large chunk of an entire chapter.

Eh. Fully half of Cleric levels don't give you anything. Seriously, what does a 4th level Cleric get? A point of BAB? Some save bumps? But no one multiclasses out after 3rd. Because the high level abilities are good.

[Hecuba]

And if you run a class-based system for the sake of pushing stock archetypes, why the heck would you choose a class-based system that is expressly designed to give players the ability to, as you say, "treat classes as an awkward point system"?

I would contest greatly the idea that the system is expressly designed to support the level of multi-classing that has become common.

As much as the execution was a towering example of poor design, the multi-class penalty rules & favored class rules demonstrate a clear intent to limit multi-classing without preventing it altogether.

The specific methodology had likely more to do with leaving the 2nd edition mechanical model - which would be problematic for a game with uniform advancement by XP - without changing the conceptual idea of multi-classing.

The class-lite character design that is common now for 3.5 is an example of emergent game play for 3.5. It's an interesting and laudable result: it comes out as significantly more accessible that many more deliberately designed point-build systems. Undoubtedly, it has significantly advance the design ethos of such systems and improved the offerings across the industry on that front.

But it was still designed to be class-based system and can readily be played that way. In fact, it works very well if played that way. The only really pressing disadvantage 3e/3.5 has for an "Old-School" D&D game (what it was initially designed for) when compared to 2nd Ed. AD&D is magnification of the caster-martial gap. That's a big issue for balance & design, but one that I find is generally outweighed by the many quality of life changes* that make the system more accessible.

*From a design perspective, mind you, a great deal of the problems that magnified caster-martial gap can be traced back to the quality of life changes. There were, unquestionably, better ways to accomplish those goals without throwing balance under the bus. But the playability difference is significant enough that I am willing to take it and address the more problematic issues via house-rules or general consent agreements.

[Triskavanski]

I wouldn't say that spells are exactly a class feature past first level. You can take a PRC and gain those same class features still. To me, a class feature would be something that isn't easily continual with most classes.

Like a paladin's smite evil, or even a rogue's sneak attack.

[Flickerdart]

I wouldn't say that spells are exactly a class feature past first level. You can take a PRC and gain those same class features still. To me, a class feature would be something that isn't easily continual with most classes.

Like a paladin's smite evil, or even a rogue's sneak attack.
Regardless of such quibbles, spells are effectively class features.

[Chronos]

If there were a prestige class that advanced all of the rogue's class features while also giving other abilities, we wouldn't say that that meant that rogues didn't have any class features. We'd say that that was a poorly-designed prestige class. Likewise, most of the casting prestige classes are poorly-designed.

And even at even-numbered levels (or odd for a sorcerer), spellcasters still get more spells per day and greater level-dependent effects on their spells. It might not be something new, but it's an improvement on what they already have. For comparison, nobody considers the level where barbarians get Greater Rage to be a dead level.

[Psyren]

I don't think that's true. The reason people jump out of martial classes early is because those classes never get high level abilities. Unless PF fixed that issue since I stopped caring about their game, I don't think that incentive is gone.

In PF, every class has high level abilities worth sticking around (base class 20) for - even Fighter does now thanks to Advanced Weapon Training. But that is a carrot, not a stick - these abilities reward you for staying, but your character is not punished for leaving (no XP penalties for instance) and you get the same things you would have gotten if you left the class in 3.5. A 2-level fighter dip in PF gets you two bonus feats just like it does in 3.5; if that's all you want out of the class, go for it. Similarly, dipping Cleric gets you two domains - and just like 3.5, some of the domain abilities scale with level and some don't, so you can always pick ones that don't.

[SimonMoon6]

As someone who's done his share of homebrewing, I think it's an unavoidable consequence of being level-based. You want to give out trademark abilities as quickly as possible, because otherwise the class lacks identity. Imagine a Barbarian who didn't get Rage until 5th level Imagine playing one from level 1. To say nothing of abilities like Weapon Finesse that significantly change investment priorities when they come online. No, you NEED to get you key abilities as fast as possible so you can actually start playing your character concept. The possibility of dipping is an acceptable consequence. (And one that can be mitigated with well designed classes that function without needing the help)

I think the solution (if a solution for this is desired) would be to say that you get the abilities early but the max benefit they can give you is based on class level. So, sure a 1st level barbarian can rage, but the max bonus he can get to str and con is based on class level. And a 1st level monk can add wisdom modifier to his AC, but with a max of his class level. And a paladin can add CHA to his saves, but with a max of his class level. That would discourage dipping.

However, mundanes are weak and mundanes are the ones who need to dip, so I wouldn't be too excited about restricting things this way.

[John Longarrow]

For concepts that can't be satisfactorily enacted by existing classes, I prefer to modify classes themselves or homebrew to digging through books to sew a bunch of mechanics together. That both lets us work a character's abilities and game lore around whatever concept the player likes and avoids all the mechanical dead-ends and fluff tangles that come from conjoining a bunch of classes together. Not to mention that binding yourself to D&D's level progression sequencing hardly less limiting than binding yourself to a specific class or two.

Plus, it lets us easily isolate and tweak the abilities that a character will have in terms of power level and mechanical depth.


I don't think 3e actually is designed for that. The much-hated multiclass penalty rules, the hundreds of pages of game lore associations with various rules, and the lofty expectations of training and secret organizations that the DMG gives PrCs all contradict the attitude that this specific forum interprets classes with.

But you're also right. Which is a part of why my 3e library is down to 3 books and Castles and Crusades and 13th Age have been getting a lot more playtime lately. I think they do D&D better than 3e does.

Hmm... So how would you home brew fighter/rogue/wizard? Depending on how I wanted to build them I can either emphasize skill points, casting, or combat. More importantly I can change up my future progress based on party needs easily if I'm allowed to select what I take next. I also have a lot of control when I can qualify for pClasses, and which one(s) I want to go into, depending on how the game is progressing.

With a static class I am not able to adapt to the needs of the party easily. More over I may find that what I had planned at lvl 1 isn't going to work the way I thought at lvl 15. I've also noted that this kind of game limits character growth as the players feel obligated to stay to one pre-ordained role rather than allowing for natural character growth.

[Willie the Duck]

I think that 3.5 naturally encourages this by frontloading so many of its classes, and I consider this to be a design flaw. I like multiclassing, but the system needs to be built with it in mind, and in that respect, offering obvious break points at low levels is a hallmark of poor class design. <snip> Yeah, as a player, you should be expected to do what the system incentivizes you to do, and that's fine, but hodgepodges of classes aren't resonant or intuitive for most people, and I don't think the system should incentivize it.


I find hodgepodge/frankenstein builds distasteful/inelegant myself

I think Troacctid has the idea that is closest to my own viewpoint, and I like Psyren's phrasing: inelegant. Sure it's fine to dip and hodgepodge and frankenstein to create a character that either fits your character view, or quite frankly one that competes in terms of power, utility, and adaptability. The thing is that, barring playing in a actual-power-level-doesn't-matter style campaign, the non-spellcasters almost have to dip and play around with the actual classes taken to make a competitive build, while the spellcasters it is optional. That's inelegant, and a valid critique of 3e.

[Hal0Badger]

The reasons I see "okay" to multi-class:


The ability/feat I want, has so ****ed up preq. if I want to get it via a feat, so that I have to multi-class (getting 2 levels of ranger to get TWF combat style)(I usually talk to players/DM about it, to make a fair&reasonable change to the feat).
To reach a certain characteristic : Human ranger/rogue/assassin : Deadly human hunter with variety of tricks.
To add variety to a character: 2-4 levels of fighter to get good at your melee prowess, or rogue, to get more skill points and some tricks.

The reason I find tremendously ugly to multi-class:
To get more and more power, on 1-2 tricks (Uber-chargers comes to mind, or optimizer spell-casters on 1-2 spell). I am not saying this is broken or OP, this I find, not fun at all, neither as a DM nor as a player.

P.S. : For the Wizard 20 discussion. I have never understood, why we should bump up the mundanes, because casters are so immensely overpowered. This mostly turns the game, into a rocket tag rather than a fun game; well at least for me. I would agree that tinkering in terms of feats only is difficult, due to number of bad feats and unnecessary preq. (I am looking at you Dodge), but trying to reach a core 20 level wizard power level via other ways, does not fix this problem, just makes it, a different game.

I do not allow 8 multi-class characters as a DM myself, but I talk to players and make adjustments for them, so they can feel their character concept without mashing gazillion of classes into 1.
This being said, I always carefully examine my caster players, and only play with the ones who would come to a gentlemen's agreement not to break the game.

By all means, this does not mean allowing 8 classes is wrong. It means, we just play differently.

[tiercel]

I maintain that this literally never happens. If you don't have a unifying theme, then you will end up with less power than a single-classed character. Can you provide a counter-example?



Full caster dipping Mindbender 1 to qualify for Mindsight, when build isn't particularly about enchantment/telepathy, just because Mindsight is at least a potentially ridiculously-strong targeting sense.

Melee dipping Barbarian 1 to gain Pounce from ACF. Sure, you don't have to, but unless you're relying on ToB strikes for your hits, it almost doesn't matter if Barbarian makes sense to your build otherwise: more full attacks.

[Willie the Duck]

P.S. : For the Wizard 20 discussion. I have never understood, why we should bump up the mundanes, because casters are so immensely overpowered. This mostly turns the game, into a rocket tag rather than a fun game; well at least for me. I would agree that tinkering in terms of feats only is difficult, due to number of bad feats and unnecessary preq. (I am looking at you Dodge), but trying to reach a core 20 level wizard power level via other ways, does not fix this problem, just makes it, a different game.

You are correct. It is a very different game. However, the urge to do so is pretty clear because the game we have has such a decided disparity. You can 1)find ways to have fun anyways (any kind of actual-power/utility-doesn't-matter or strictly-roleplay type campaign), 2) bring up the non-spellcasters, or 3)bring down spellcasters (whether through house rules or simply agreeing not to steel the limelight).

[Necroticplague]

P.S. : For the Wizard 20 discussion. I have never understood, why we should bump up the mundanes, because casters are so immensely overpowered. This mostly turns the game, into a rocket tag rather than a fun game; well at least for me. I would agree that tinkering in terms of feats only is difficult, due to number of bad feats and unnecessary preq. (I am looking at you Dodge), but trying to reach a core 20 level wizard power level via other ways, does not fix this problem, just makes it, a different game.

Way I see it, rocket tag IS fun. It's cutting out some uninteresting wastes of time and letting us get to actually interesting parts quickly. Combat is much more tactical and engagin when any mistake could be your death. The problem with mundanes, as I see it, is that they're almost always stuck with dealing with uninteresting parts of the game through there whole career, while casters gain the ability to skip to the parts they like (Why yes, we could go on a long journey overland and hear your lovely descriptions of towns with little plot significance that I don't care about, and have a few random encounters that are as insignificant as they are inevitably victorious. OR, I could teleport there, and we can get on with the actual plot.)

[Hecuba]

P.S. : For the Wizard 20 discussion. I have never understood, why we should bump up the mundanes, because casters are so immensely overpowered. This mostly turns the game, into a rocket tag rather than a fun game; well at least for me. I would agree that tinkering in terms of feats only is difficult, due to number of bad feats and unnecessary preq. (I am looking at you Dodge), but trying to reach a core 20 level wizard power level via other ways, does not fix this problem, just makes it, a different game.

As a design goal, I agree with your position: I find it much preferable to hit the full casters with the nerf bat than to buff the martial classes.

In terms of a robust rules-based implementation (as opposed to a general agreement), however, that tends to be more difficult.

A major part of it is that there are a significant number of spells that are baked into the system's presumptions at certain levels. Many monsters have abilities that are only remotely CR appropriate because spell-based counters are available (negative levels is the easiest example). Others only have SLAs or casting that would would be inappropriate for their CR following a general casting nerf.

The former problem can, to some extent, be solved by preserving some spell access through things like the ritual casting alternate system (originally suggested for non-casters, but it fits nicely here for casters who need to do non-objectionable things outside a threatening environment). The later is a harder problem.

Nerfing the actual casting is easy: we already have casters that are in the neighborhood. Rebuilding the chassis for each of the Tier 1 casters to have progression similar to that of Bard, Adept, or Magewright is fairly trivial. Rebuilding the MM & company to match is much harder.

[Chronos]

Quoth tiercel:

Full caster dipping Mindbender 1 to qualify for Mindsight, when build isn't particularly about enchantment/telepathy, just because Mindsight is at least a potentially ridiculously-strong targeting sense.
While this is a dip done purely for power, it's not one often found as part of a hodgepodge of classes, and in fact only works for the category of classes (full casters) which were already mentioned as usually not hodgepodging. It's still a problem, but the problem is entirely with that specific class being too front-loaded.


Melee dipping Barbarian 1 to gain Pounce from ACF. Sure, you don't have to, but unless you're relying on ToB strikes for your hits, it almost doesn't matter if Barbarian makes sense to your build otherwise: more full attacks.
And this is an example of a dip that doesn't work at all unless it fits your concept. A caster of any sort will never take that dip, nor will a skillmonkey, nor a face, nor anyone else at all but a guy built around hitting things with weapons. Classes with other themes could take that dip, but they won't, because it doesn't fit their theme, and therefore will not benefit them. And for the guy who does base his character on hitting things with weapons, it makes perfect sense for him to learn combat techniques that let him hit things with weapons more often.

[The Insanity]

Divine inspiration. Off-screen traveling scholar. He discovers secret Druidic tablets and manages to learn the language off of them.
I just say that Druidic is a magical language that you don't have to learn, but just know when you're a Druid. And because it's not something you learn, you also can't teach it.

[tiercel]

While this is a dip done purely for power, it's not one often found as part of a hodgepodge of classes, and in fact only works for the category of classes (full casters) which were already mentioned as usually not hodgepodging. It's still a problem, but the problem is entirely with that specific class being too front-loaded.

"Not often found" is still a far cry from "literally never," and full-casters is a ridiculously broad category, not a particular character archetype. Granted, dipping Mindbender is probably better on something like Beguiler: thematically, in terms of class skills, and in terms of delaying-Advanced-Learning-a-spell-level shenanigans; it's optimization that really doesn't need much RP justification.



And this is an example of a dip that doesn't work at all unless it fits your concept. A caster of any sort will never take that dip, nor will a skillmonkey, nor a face, nor anyone else at all but a guy built around hitting things with weapons. Classes with other themes could take that dip, but they won't, because it doesn't fit their theme, and therefore will not benefit them. And for the guy who does base his character on hitting things with weapons, it makes perfect sense for him to learn combat techniques that let him hit things with weapons more often.

Barbarian 1 works for most melee which is not full caster, which is another ridiculously broad category. (If you are ToB based or a mounted charger, maybe not, but likely most other noncaster melee types.) "I make full attacks on a charge" is so useful that Barbarian looks like a dip to have even if you are an urbane swashbuckler or highly drilled watch captain. Yes, you can generate a RP rationalization, but likely the real reason you're dipping Barbarian is for Pounce. (Even if that was all you got, never mind that you get Rage of some flavor too.)

[P.F.]

I have no problem with hodgepodgery if it's part of a unified theme. When it starts to give me a headache is when it introduces too many abstruse subsystems which the player then springs on me in the middle of a combat. I don't have time to do a close reading of six splatsource expansions to figure out what capabilities your character has and how they might be abused.

Even in core, I sometimes see the Fighter/(ex-)Barbarian/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Duelist type thing come up ... If the character concept is a vagabond wanderer who travels around learning different fighting techniques form different cultures, then that's probably fine. It's when this player wants his character to be treated like a career military officer when he walks into town that I take exception. That's not a character concept, that's a hodgepodge of classes with a stupidly high Fortitude save and delusions of self-importance.

[bekeleven]

I'm going to build on (restate?) Grod's post from a bit back.

The reason even well-designed classes allow or encourage dipping is that signature and build-defining class features need to appear early. A shapeshifter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?297550) should be dumping str and con from level 1 (2 at the latest). A class built around weapon summoning (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?362608) should get at least some amount of WBL assistance from game start. A class that adds charisma to everything should start adding charisma to things (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?302593). Even when classes have solid lategame abilities, getting gamechanging "mechanics are different for me now" stuff early means that dipping is still a very viable option.

How to classes fix it? Scaling.

The forms taken are weak in combat to start. The starting weapons are impressive at level 1, but barely usable at level 5. And numbers scale by class level. Or scale by something else but have a max set by the class level.

You know what classes do this in core? Rogues (kinda)... and casters. Yeah, casters get spells! Caster level scales by class level. Spell level scales by caster level.

The problem with casters (well... one of them) is that since casters are a large portion of the base classes, there are a large portion of prestige classes catering to them. And few of these are very selective; a good number have turn undead requirements or maybe require a specific spell, but most rarely get more specific than "Arcane or divine?" or "Spontaneous or prepared?" And these classes have all of the relevant class features of the base classes, because the relevant features are limited to spells. And they have extra stuff besides!

If there were no prestige classes with 10/10 casting, it would encourage Caster20 builds. Of course, this runs into a different problem. The classes are boring! Sure, spells are good once you get into them, but half the time you level you're not getting a new spell level, you're getting the spells that aren't as good as the ones you already grabbed (or, on a full-list caster, basically nothing). A well-designed class needs a solid progression of both power and interest, ideally hitting every level with something interesting (spell level, new power, or at least another use of a class-defining ability). A class shouldn't force you to single-class because otherwise it can't function... at least not openly. It should entice you to want to complete it, and perhaps throw some Practiced Spellcaster-style feats* for those that want to moonlight. This is similar to PF's favored-class concept, but I think it can be done in the class itself if built right.

Should Barbarian grant Pounce at level 1? Well, it's hard to split up pounce, but it's doable. Maybe grant "Pounce, but with a maximum number of attacks equal to class level" to force 4-6 levels. At that point you have people trying the class out of a sense of obligation. Make them happy! Spice it up with some synergy: No -AC to charges. Free bull rush on hit after charges. Then throw in some more abilities, like PF's rage powers. Keep things coming. At least once a level; I've built classes with some obnoxiously crowded tables (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?302593).

How did other classes fail? Paladin needs a mount at level 1, just for a small period each day, and needs to scale it by level. There just isn't enough core content to make the Ranger an interesting martial character, so the mystic ranger is the most realistic fix for the time. Although taking the PF rogue's example, the real solution was massive amounts of additional content - and granting special abilities from level 1 2.

I dunno. I think that dipping is fine conceptually, but on a meta level it's a signal that no one class met the player's needs. Single-classing is also simpler, and few people like complication for the sake of complication, so if the single class can mechanically express the build I have in mind, it's a win-win. This is one reason I prefer classes with meaningful build decisions. Force enough binary decisions, and it's almost like you made 65536 classes in your subsystem all at once.**

I think that ends my digression to my digression to my digression.

tldr: I haven't slept in 30 hours.

*What a coincidence that I've built practiced spellcaster feats for at least 3 subsystems, depending on how you count.
**Because come on, if you spent all that work building something that a single character can get all of, you must not have had much ambition. Side note: A simple class like the Rappeler (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307935) can be leveled a few million different ways. A class like the servant soul probably has that many build-defining ACF/Feat combinations alone. Note that I had the heroic spirit system built for about 4 years before I even thought of a second class with gameplay I couldn't express using the first...

[Sir Chuckles]

I have no problem with hodgepodgery if it's part of a unified theme. When it starts to give me a headache is when it introduces too many abstruse subsystems which the player then springs on me in the middle of a combat. I don't have time to do a close reading of six splatsource expansions to figure out what capabilities your character has and how they might be abused.

Even in core, I sometimes see the Fighter/(ex-)Barbarian/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Duelist type thing come up ... If the character concept is a vagabond wanderer who travels around learning different fighting techniques form different cultures, then that's probably fine. It's when this player wants his character to be treated like a career military officer when he walks into town that I take exception. That's not a character concept, that's a hodgepodge of classes with a stupidly high Fortitude save and delusions of self-importance.

To expand on the last comment, if the player comes to me and directly says "Absurdly beefy guy with delusions of grandeur who attempts to emulate what he thinks a warrior-officer would do", then suddenly that hodgepodge works.

And, for me, that's what's important. I believe that fluff and mechanics are not divorced, but married with children. It is then the job of the player to make that marriage as happy as possible.

[PersonMan]

Even in core, I sometimes see the Fighter/(ex-)Barbarian/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Duelist type thing come up ... If the character concept is a vagabond wanderer who travels around learning different fighting techniques form different cultures, then that's probably fine. It's when this player wants his character to be treated like a career military officer when he walks into town that I take exception. That's not a character concept, that's a hodgepodge of classes with a stupidly high Fortitude save and delusions of self-importance.

I dunno, to me it's something that could work, especially if you can move some of the levels around.

Barbarian -> Fighter: Good at fighting, driven by emotion and capable of bursts of strength and stamina fueled by anger/conviction. "The moment he brought up my brother's death, I lost control. I'm not sure how I didn't notice the cut on my arm, but he certainly noticed the hole in his chest."
Paladin -> Ranger: Joins a holy order, tempers the fury within*, learns from a master of wilderness combat to find Evil wherever it may try to run and hide. The months of fighting goblins in the hills around the order's outpost has led to the development of a few special anti-goblin techniques and a great deal of knowledge on how they work, in both a mental and physical sense. "He's lying - the left ear jitters a bit, just like the ones trying to lead me into an ambush three years ago..."
Monk -> Duelist**: Perhaps experiences some traumatic defeat - weapon lost or destroyed. They used to lose themselves in fury while fighting, opening themselves up to enemy attacks. Now they hone their mind, keeping the passion for their cause but retaining a cool head even in battle. Of course, they learn as much as they can about fighting unarmed to avoid (a repeat of) [bad event]. "I used to let go of my mind and just fight. Now my mind and body fight together, and I am stronger for it."

*Losing the ability to Rage, which I don't think makes sense but hey, apparently only Chaotic people can get mad and beat the villain when they're taunted about some past failure.
**You have to have prepared for Duelist, given its prereqs, unless your character just happened to fit the archetype anyways (I mean, not many people will take Dodge/Mobility/Weapon Finesse on a whim)

So you could make something like...

Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Paladin 2/Ranger 1/Monk 1/Ranger +1/Duelist 1 (the anti-synergy almost hurts, but alright, this is Core-only so no Paladin of Freedom)

Raised near the frontier, Sarin was always exceptionally emotional, having trouble with strict rules and never learning to read from the local scribe. When she was taught to fight in order to help defend the town if the need came (which it did once every year when the nomadic tribes came down from the mountains in the summer), she became a type of scout, sent out to see the nomads' approach and rush back to warn the others so they could not be surprised by an attack. She succeeded a number of times at averting a disaster, the nomads deciding to retreat rather than face an obviously-prepared enemy. Then her hometown came under attack by a far larger group than normal, only being rescued by a force of knights that had been passing through the area. During the fighting, she flies into a fury at the sight of her brother's corpse, killing three enemies before almost falling herself - impressing one of the knights, who later recruits her to replace his own fallen squire.

Under the minor noble Tybolt, Sarin undergoes another period of training, being forced to make sense of the strange symbols she formerly scoffed at and finding ways to make herself less of a target during her wild rushing through combat. Slowly, she finds methods of keeping her temper under control and bends to the rules of her instructors. The next she is in real battle, the anger from her village doesn't flare up, and she is told only months stand between her and the end of her training.

When her patron is murdered, she spends half a year finding those who killed him, but halts her blade over their neck, instead handing them to the courts. That night, the fire within her changes, the anger dying away as a light fills her. Only a few days pass before a representative of the Holy Knights finds her, offering her a far higher place in the ranks than she held before as a squire. She would be a Holy Knight, honing her special skills in preparation for a crusade against Evil.

Sarin accepts, journeying to a mountain stronghold in the north to help pacify the area - the town had recently reported attacks by groups of goblins, working from the woods around the area. Along the way, she and the representative of the Holy Knights fight off a pair of monsters attacking a town; just after, she channels holy light for the first time, saving a dying boy whose face looks just like her long-dead brother's. Her convictions grow stronger, and for the first time the meaning of a Holy Knight's quest becomes visible to her.

Arriving at the stronghold, Sarin finds her knowledge of combat all but worthless as the goblin raiders continually melt away into the forest. After weeks, she manages to find a set of tracks that don't simply disappear in some clearing, tracking a pair of goblins to their hideout deep in the woods. Two more months follow, in which the divine link her mentors explain she will find with a celestial mount manifests; rather than letting her summon a warhorse of Celestia, however, she finds herself with a connection to all animals. Despite this, she is nearly killed when a surrendered goblin leads her into an ambush.

From then on, Sarin is more careful, watching closely whenever she questions a prisoner, learning the quirks of a goblin's speech and posture. Finally, the day comes and she leads a force of Holy Knights to destroy the raiders' camps one by one, ending the threat to the town just as word comes from the south that they are needed to defend against a demonic incursion. On the way, she is hastily made a full-fledged Holy Knight, receiving a mundane warhorse to ride and commanding three others in a lance of cavalry. The celebrations are brief, as the Holy Knights' arrival places them in the midst of a chaotic demon assault.

During the battle, Sarin leads her men well, eventually sending them to aid a group of villagers escaping with the old and sick who would otherwise be slaughtered by the advancing demons. While fighting one, her sword shatters, and she barely manages to survive, using a fallen comrade's spear to impale her foe. Shaken by the experience, Sarin is still successful in her task. Due to her efforts, both during the battle and in commanding her men, she rises in rank again, but before taking the reigns of a larger force she is sent on a quest to find a holy relic needed to seal the portal from which the demons are still coming through. Accompanying her is another Paladin, one who took a far more traditional path.

On her journey, Sarin learns everything she can from her comrade, even taking much of it further. Rather than using the hand-to-hand combat as a form of exercise and reflex training, she works to hone her unarmed skills until they are lethal in their own right. One day she puts down a belligerent man who is threatening to kill another over a dispute, for the first time sending holy power through her arm rather than her sword - and finding herself able to incapacitate with it, rather than only use it to add an edge to her blade.

Inspired by recurring dreams and the realization that her perception is growing ever-sharper, Sarin works to hone her senses even further, eventually leaving behind her armor in favor of simply avoiding her enemies' attacks. Rather than give in to emotion, she channels it into holy power, but her mind never ceases its work, allowing her to read the dangers of combat faster than she could in the past. Letting her intuition guide her, she experiments further, eventually finding a way to combine her formerly separate means of fighting. Now she fights with both her blade and her unarmed fighting style.

The relic is found, but as Sarin and the other Paladin leave its former place of rest, demonic hunters sent to destroy it bar their path. Forced to fight against several opponents, she manages to overcome the attack. After the battle she delves more deeply into her former thoughts, finding patterns at work in the movements of her own fighting, then working to find them in those of others. Another layer of mental defense joins her already powerful sense of the motion in combat.

After retrieving the relic, Sarin and her comrade return to the order, receiving the praise of its highest members and gaining further accolades.

Walking into town, the closest thing to a career military officer a Paladin can get, Sarin's full formal title is Sarin Brightsun* of the White Mountain, Baroness of the Eastern March, Golden Blade of the Order of Holy Knights.

*A surname given when she joined the Holy Knights, to signify her allegiance to it before any family bonds.

So you have someone who by all rights should be treated like a career military officer, who climbed the ranks in typical protagonist fashion (i.e. a mix of skill, being in the right place at the right time, hard work and great upheavals creating opportunities for upward mobility) and is now technically a landed noble who is called upon by her order to command a unit of men during battle, with each twist and turn of her training represented by her classes and each portion of her class history shown in her training.

She's also pretty garbage at fighting compared to most PCs of her level, especially if she doesn't have godlike stats that let her have a great Int/Wis/possibly Cha while also maintaining a solid Con, Str and Dex. But she's not a patchwork character, by any means - she bears the signs of a lengthy path of adventure, with a dose of 'she's a divine character, it was the Cosmic Good's doing' to explain some of the odder things.

[rrwoods]

I don't have time to do a close reading of six splatsource expansions to figure out what capabilities your character has and how they might be abused.

Ugh. Why do you have to read six splatbooks?

Part of the reason I'm *able* to feel so strongly about everything-goes is that I also feel that character creation should be a conversation between the DM and the players. Experienced players should have a rough roadmap of what capabilities they'll be acquiring from the get-go. I'm not necessarily talking a build to 20 complete with every feat selection and skill point allocation (although let's be honest, most of us would have that ready anyhow), just a sort-of "I plan to go into this prestige class and base my mid-level choices around that feat" kind of thing. At the same time, new players can very easily get hopelessly lost in 3.5's dizzying array of options, which (I think) should be solved by working with the player all the way from conceptualization to the gaming table to help them execute a concept they think is cool and you know is effective.

Both the new player and the experienced player should have a workable personality and backstory attached to their character before they ever arrive at the table (with your assistance, no less). This means that, not only are you sure their concept "makes sense" (whatever that means), you can work their character concept into the world-at-large! Do you have a sneak? Maybe he's been captured or arrested and broken out of jail and has to keep his head down. Is there a religious type? (There's probably a religious type.) Who does he worship? How is their god seen by the locals? Etc.

And once you've done that, guess what? There's no splatbook diving to figure out what your characters *might* do because you already know what they can do: you've (hopefully!) seen their character sheets.

And besides, if you're actually worried about not being able to figure out what capabilities your character has, the first step isn't banning uberdipping.

It's banning Cleric and Druid. (Oh hey, it's *still* about casters!)

[Quertus]

Raised near the frontier, Sarin was always exceptionally emotional, having trouble with strict rules and never learning to read from the local scribe. When she was taught to fight in order to help defend the town if the need came (which it did once every year when the nomadic tribes came down from the mountains in the summer), she became a type of scout, sent out to see the nomads' approach and rush back to warn the others so they could not be surprised by an attack. She succeeded a number of times at averting a disaster, the nomads deciding to retreat rather than face an obviously-prepared enemy. Then her hometown came under attack by a far larger group than normal, only being rescued by a force of knights that had been passing through the area. During the fighting, she flies into a fury at the sight of her brother's corpse, killing three enemies before almost falling herself - impressing one of the knights, who later recruits her to replace his own fallen squire.

Under the minor noble Tybolt, Sarin undergoes another period of training, being forced to make sense of the strange symbols she formerly scoffed at and finding ways to make herself less of a target during her wild rushing through combat. Slowly, she finds methods of keeping her temper under control and bends to the rules of her instructors. The next she is in real battle, the anger from her village doesn't flare up, and she is told only months stand between her and the end of her training.

When her patron is murdered, she spends half a year finding those who killed him, but halts her blade over their neck, instead handing them to the courts. That night, the fire within her changes, the anger dying away as a light fills her. Only a few days pass before a representative of the Holy Knights finds her, offering her a far higher place in the ranks than she held before as a squire. She would be a Holy Knight, honing her special skills in preparation for a crusade against Evil.

Sarin accepts, journeying to a mountain stronghold in the north to help pacify the area - the town had recently reported attacks by groups of goblins, working from the woods around the area. Along the way, she and the representative of the Holy Knights fight off a pair of monsters attacking a town; just after, she channels holy light for the first time, saving a dying boy whose face looks just like her long-dead brother's. Her convictions grow stronger, and for the first time the meaning of a Holy Knight's quest becomes visible to her.

Arriving at the stronghold, Sarin finds her knowledge of combat all but worthless as the goblin raiders continually melt away into the forest. After weeks, she manages to find a set of tracks that don't simply disappear in some clearing, tracking a pair of goblins to their hideout deep in the woods. Two more months follow, in which the divine link her mentors explain she will find with a celestial mount manifests; rather than letting her summon a warhorse of Celestia, however, she finds herself with a connection to all animals. Despite this, she is nearly killed when a surrendered goblin leads her into an ambush.

From then on, Sarin is more careful, watching closely whenever she questions a prisoner, learning the quirks of a goblin's speech and posture. Finally, the day comes and she leads a force of Holy Knights to destroy the raiders' camps one by one, ending the threat to the town just as word comes from the south that they are needed to defend against a demonic incursion. On the way, she is hastily made a full-fledged Holy Knight, receiving a mundane warhorse to ride and commanding three others in a lance of cavalry. The celebrations are brief, as the Holy Knights' arrival places them in the midst of a chaotic demon assault.

During the battle, Sarin leads her men well, eventually sending them to aid a group of villagers escaping with the old and sick who would otherwise be slaughtered by the advancing demons. While fighting one, her sword shatters, and she barely manages to survive, using a fallen comrade's spear to impale her foe. Shaken by the experience, Sarin is still successful in her task. Due to her efforts, both during the battle and in commanding her men, she rises in rank again, but before taking the reigns of a larger force she is sent on a quest to find a holy relic needed to seal the portal from which the demons are still coming through. Accompanying her is another Paladin, one who took a far more traditional path.

On her journey, Sarin learns everything she can from her comrade, even taking much of it further. Rather than using the hand-to-hand combat as a form of exercise and reflex training, she works to hone her unarmed skills until they are lethal in their own right. One day she puts down a belligerent man who is threatening to kill another over a dispute, for the first time sending holy power through her arm rather than her sword - and finding herself able to incapacitate with it, rather than only use it to add an edge to her blade.

Inspired by recurring dreams and the realization that her perception is growing ever-sharper, Sarin works to hone her senses even further, eventually leaving behind her armor in favor of simply avoiding her enemies' attacks. Rather than give in to emotion, she channels it into holy power, but her mind never ceases its work, allowing her to read the dangers of combat faster than she could in the past. Letting her intuition guide her, she experiments further, eventually finding a way to combine her formerly separate means of fighting. Now she fights with both her blade and her unarmed fighting style.

The relic is found, but as Sarin and the other Paladin leave its former place of rest, demonic hunters sent to destroy it bar their path. Forced to fight against several opponents, she manages to overcome the attack. After the battle she delves more deeply into her former thoughts, finding patterns at work in the movements of her own fighting, then working to find them in those of others. Another layer of mental defense joins her already powerful sense of the motion in combat.

After retrieving the relic, Sarin and her comrade return to the order, receiving the praise of its highest members and gaining further accolades.

Walking into town, the closest thing to a career military officer a Paladin can get, Sarin's full formal title is Sarin Brightsun* of the White Mountain, Baroness of the Eastern March, Golden Blade of the Order of Holy Knights.

*A surname given when she joined the Holy Knights, to signify her allegiance to it before any family bonds.

So you have someone who by all rights should be treated like a career military officer, who climbed the ranks in typical protagonist fashion (i.e. a mix of skill, being in the right place at the right time, hard work and great upheavals creating opportunities for upward mobility) and is now technically a landed noble who is called upon by her order to command a unit of men during battle, with each twist and turn of her training represented by her classes and each portion of her class history shown in her training.

She's also pretty garbage at fighting compared to most PCs of her level, especially if she doesn't have godlike stats that let her have a great Int/Wis/possibly Cha while also maintaining a solid Con, Str and Dex. But she's not a patchwork character, by any means - she bears the signs of a lengthy path of adventure, with a dose of 'she's a divine character, it was the Cosmic Good's doing' to explain some of the odder things.

That was awesome. Reading your backstory, I couldn't help thinking, "I'm glad we didn't start at 1st level - there's no way we could have fit that in with 3-5 other people's planned career paths". Is it wrong that I look at this as or more reason to want to play games that start after the characters have come into their own?

[ShurikVch]

If we look at famous characters of Faerûn, we will see a lot of multiclassing

Say, Artemis Entreri - Rogue 4/Fighter 12/Ranger 1/Assassin 1

Or Seven Sisters:
Anastra Syluné Silverhand - Fighter 2/Sorcerer 2/Wizard 20
Dove Falconhand - Ranger 14/Sorcerer 9/Rogue 4/Harper agent 1
Storm Silverhand - Rogue 1/Fighter 4/Bard 8/Sorcerer 12/Harper agent 3
...

Elminster Aumar - Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard 24/Archmage 5

[Ruethgar]

I typically frown on the use of dissimilar classes in a hodgepodge, but am find with similarly thematic ones. For example a Warblade and Fighter are very similar thematically and can easily drift into multiple directions, the primal route with Barbarian and Ranger melding into more stealth-ish Scout, Rogue, and skilled Swordsage and Monk to a bit of divine Crusader, Paladin, though those are a bit further removed, Monk can work well to tie them into the chain, but would be better on their own. From Ranger or Paladin you can easily blend Wizard with Sword of the Arcane Order and Mystic Ranger while Ranger can fit thematically with Druid and Paladin with Cleric and by domain use Cleric with Druid.

So in short I prefer a hodgepodge to flow well with a theme. And with the shear quantity of options in 3.x, there are very few core class combinations that can't be made to flow well. The first example, would be ok, Nightsong, Spellthief and Barbarian don't mesh very well in the Swashbuckler sort of character, but Fighter/Swashbuckler/Rogue do and there should always be a little leniency for mechanical might vs RP especially when it comes to mundanes.

[John Longarrow]

Even in core, I sometimes see the Fighter/(ex-)Barbarian/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Duelist type thing come up ... If the character concept is a vagabond wanderer who travels around learning different fighting techniques form different cultures, then that's probably fine. It's when this player wants his character to be treated like a career military officer when he walks into town that I take exception. That's not a character concept, that's a hodgepodge of classes with a stupidly high Fortitude save and delusions of self-importance.

From the officers I know, this would be closer to their own personal career paths than going straight up fighter.
What would you call a Marine infantryman who decides he's had enough with the Corps, get out and goes to college, then decides he'd like to serve and proceeds to go through infantry, artillery, logistics, communications, and service/support? I'd have to call him "Sir" as he's a General. Most people in the military pick up more than one 'career path' if they want to progress. Multiple skills is an asset. Real life people do this kind of stuff all the time.

Even fiction has a hard time with single class characters. Most had a whole other career before they took up the gun/sword/what ever.

[Seward]

Eh. Fully half of Cleric levels don't give you anything. Seriously, what does a 4th level Cleric get? A point of BAB? Some save bumps? But no one multiclasses out after 3rd. Because the high level abilities are good.

Level 4 cleric gives you more spell slots.

For prepared casters, spell slots are power and flexibility and endurance and pretty much everything that matters.

[Seward]

Here's my best hodgepodge. The only character I've ever had that got audited in organized play because she was almost as good as she thought she was.

The concept was a halfling street urchin redeemed by Sarenrae. She's tiny and weak, but give her a scimitar and a righteous cause and she'll try to do the right thing. From a personality standpoint she's like Tara in Xena

"Tara: [looks at Gabrielle] Hey, look! I never said I was a goody-two-shoes, but I'm here to turn it around! I wanna be a hero and fight for good, protect wimps and kick the crap out of jerks. "

Pathfinder lets you do a dexterity-based scimitar weilder as long as Sarenrae is your patron (there's even at trait for doing nonlethal damage with it). Sarenrae's a god of healing and slicing things with scimitars, so I skinned the nonlethal as the halfling swinging the sword wildly and it slices into somebody..and heals right up. All the pain without the damage....so you can "redeem" people you beat up and showed that Sarenrae's Superior.

I wanted somebody kind of unclear on the concept of what it is to be a paladin (Sarenrae's neutral good, so she's got paladins, but this girl's barely Chaotic good, trying hard not to be neutral). I thought the Urban barbarian archetype would fit the backstory and be mechanically sound (a tiny halfling can move in crowds easily, would be harder to hit with too many other allies around etc). But I also wanted somebody who could actually, you know, participate in a level 1 adventure.

The way to use a scimitar and get dex to damage in Pathfinder at level 1 is to take the Dawnflower Dervish Bard archetype. (otherwise it requires you to be level 2, so you have to suck for a level using a crossbow or something). This had a side effect that the class has a cleric-like code of conduct, so if my character ever violated Sarenrae's rules, I lose the feat that makes the entire character work (she doesn't even have weapon finesse - she can hurt things ONLY using a scimitar).

Ok, so I took that, and a couple levels of barbarian. All was well, uncanny dodge was the best thing ever and well earned after two levels of being ambushed by kobolds. Then it got kind of interesting. You see, Dervish Dance requires using one handed fighting, the other hand can't be used for anything - no shield, no two-handed grip, no two weapon fighting. Think of a barbarian using a kukri in one hand without power attack - that's the kind of damage potential she had. Now between rage and some of the bard stuff I had some ways to boost that a bit, but really I wanted more attacks, you know, like a dervish....

There is one and only one way to get extra attacks with a scimitar if you can't use two weapon fighting, and it works well with a religious character. Crusader's Flurry requires both channel energy and flurry of blows. Paladin's out due to alignment, but there is a monk archetype (Martial Artist) that has no alignment restriction. So a massive 2 BAB hit to take a cleric level (which gave a paladin-like aura of good, very nice, plus the ability to throw really weak fire bolts and variant channeling to heal 1d3+brighten up the room) and a monk level and two feats (weapon focus and crusader flurry) and I'm now swinging that scimitar even more wildly.

Now at this time the character was in a series of adventures involving traps and as the character with massive dexterity in the party she'd invested in disable device but wanted real trapfinding. I'm already down a 3 BAB from bard/cleric/monk, so rogue is right out, but there's a ranger archetype that trades magic for disabling magic traps. Also - how do you get power attack with a 5 strength? Well, in Pathfinder, only one way, a ranger combat style. So I took a second level of ranger.

Then back to barbarian levels so I could make my sword burst into flame, and a monk level because fireballs really shouldn't hurt the Chosen of Sarenrae...well you get the idea. Level 11 was a fighter level so I could use my stunning fist power with my scimitar while also getting improved critical. Ok that one was pure power, but STUNNING with a SCIMITAR, and I get to play it.

Pathfinder society has retirement at level 12. But the whole time she's this person who thinks she's a paladin, but totally isn't. She had a whole philosophy, and didn't pay attention, and made stuff up but she kind of got things right too. Just nobody listens to her when she's right.

Instead of "it isn't illegal to be Evil", you get the "Just because they're evil doesn't mean they are a Jerk" speech. (She Smites Jerks and Protects Wimps and takes that VERY seriously). She's learned to warn new party members "If I'm out there surrounded by enemies I AM FINE. Don't come in unless you're equally fine because you're too heavy to move"). She is also funny because she can disable any lock or trap, but a stuck door leaves her shrugging her shoulders and looking at a bigger party member. She has a sword of "Smite Anything" which doesn't require her to understand the weaknesses of her enemies (+1 adamantine furious evil outsider bane. In Pathfinder, that covers all three metal DR's when she's raging due to +3 enh bonus, and evil outsider bane will beat alignment DR on evil outsiders when she's raging, due to a +5 enh bonus)

Mechanically, she's closer to a Paladin than anything else. Damage is similar to a well designed sword&board tank - reliable, and if you ignore her she WILL kill you fairly fast. She's has extremely good saving throws and very high AC - but she looks and acts like that Barbarian dude who charges into crowds of enemies and gets clobbered.

I've written up a L11 paladin that hits very similar numbers to hers (although doing so as a medium sized high strength character with heavy armor+shield)

But Pena is a:
L1 Bard (Dawnflower Dervish and Animal speaker - she LOVES dogs)
L4 Barbarian (Urban, Superstitious and Elemental Rage)
L1 Cleric (Sarenrae, Fire Domain, Crusader archetype)
L2 Monk (Martial Artist)
L2 Ranger (Trapper and Guide - instead of a favored enemy she has a "Jerk of the Day" power where she "Smites" them by calling down a ranger focus. Another party member kept Phantasmal Killing enemies right after she did that, which lead her to believe some bad guys die of fright when she "smites" them)
L1 Fighter (Lorewarden - hey she IS a member of the Pathfinder Society and they finally made her take a rank in Knowledge Religion at level 11)

Her saves got strangely high due to all of the multiclassing, and she's a finely tuned build of interlocking feats and class abilities where little +1 to +2 bonuses add up to serious advantages. But really, mechanically - she's a single class paladin that fights in a Sarenrae costume, dexterity and with a scimitar instead of with platemail, shield, lance, strength and charisma.

My point is that you get the same contribution at the table with a single class and "hodgepodge" character built along the same lines, and both can be entertaining, thematic and flavorful. Hell, this hodgepodge actually had good reasons to get training in each class when she switched that fit the kinds of adventures she was having. (the original build was pretty much a bard1-barbarianX, maybe with some duelist near the end. She went on a few tangents after level 3 based on actual play and actually ended up with a lot more religion in the build than planned).

Why wouldn't you want people to be able to make a martial champion of a neutral good goddess that isn't a paladin but is similar enough to make it clear that it is the same basic idea? Does Paizo have to invent a class or archetype for everything? This sort of thing is why multiclassing exists at all.

[ericgrau]

Caster 20 should never be an excuse to mess up the mundane classes. Find another way to help the mundane classes if you wish, without doing something dumb to them. Many of us don't have time for the complication of 10 different classes from 8 different books. Ditto for anything that causes different levels of optimization among players, especially complicated things that create a big learning curve for rookies or for those who wish to have a life outside of D&D. Banning anything that's too complicated and creates a power disparity is a fine idea.

Some multi-classing is fine for variety to keep it interesting, but 2 or 3 or eventually 3 or 4 is fine for that.

Plus casters benefit from having many PrCs too.

[rrwoods]

Caster 20 should never be an excuse to mess up the mundane classes. Find another way to help the mundane classes if you wish, without doing something dumb to them. Many of us don't have time for the complication of 10 different classes from 8 different books. Ditto for anything that causes different levels of optimization among players, especially complicated things that create a big learning curve for rookies or for those who wish to have a life outside of D&D. Banning anything that's too complicated and creates a power disparity is a fine idea.

Some multi-classing is fine for variety to keep it interesting, but 2 or 3 or eventually 3 or 4 is fine for that.

Plus casters benefit from having many PrCs too.
This whole post makes no sense to me. Of course you should keep everyone in the same game on the same page in terms of power level. What's the got to do with exactly which optimization techniques you use?

[ericgrau]

This whole post makes no sense to me. Of course you should keep everyone in the same game on the same page in terms of power level. What's the got to do with exactly which optimization techniques you use?
10 classes adds complication to increase power, exactly what you never want to do. Never waste people's time so they can keep up with the power of those who put in more time. Analyzing, finding and planning 10 classes from 8 books takes a lot of time. Or many people don't even know how and it would take eons for them to learn. So banning an excessive number is a good idea. Along with everything else that boosts power but is too complicated or too time consuming for some of the members of the group. It creates unequal power because many people have better things to do with their time.

[rrwoods]

It sounds like you're trying to make an argument based on a player's desire to keep things restricted to a certain degree of complication. But if the player doesn't have that desire, why make the restriction? And if they do, won't they just enforce it themselves?

Don't tell me I can't play something because it's too complicated for *me* (as a player). If it's too complicated for you (as a DM), see my numerous previous arguments in this thread (though I'll summarize by saying that, essentially, you only need to read the options the player is actually going to take, meaning that the complication of a build isn't actually related to how many classes are in it).

EDIT: it doesn't create unequal power! It in fact created equal power. Again, if power levels are what you're concerned about, address it directly by telling players with builds too powerful for your table that they need to tone it down.

[PersonMan]

10 classes adds complication to increase power, exactly what you never want to do. Never waste people's time so they can keep up with the power of those who put in more time. Analyzing, finding and planning 10 classes from 8 books takes a lot of time. Or many people don't even know how and it would take eons for them to learn. So banning an excessive number is a good idea. Along with everything else that boosts power but is too complicated or too time consuming for some of the members of the group. It creates unequal power because many people have better things to do with their time.

Players can help each other building characters, so this isn't an issue in my opinion.

If A's character involves 11 sourcebooks, and B is overshadowed because they want to make a character that needs to dip into 9 sourcebooks to be on the same level as A (and even hope to be useful in a party with C's fullcaster), the answer is to have A help B. A spends the time and helps B with a more complex build that they boil down (explaining something is a lot faster than finding and making it yourself, so B doesn't need more than 10 minutes of time). Everyone's happy, no one feels like they have to deconstruct their character because someone else is being slow.

[TheCrowing1432]

I feel like im missing context here.

Can someone fill me in?

[Chronos]

Quoth ericgrau:

Caster 20 should never be an excuse to mess up the mundane classes.
Right, so just because casters are effectively locked into a single class, don't mess up mundanes by locking them into a single class, too.

[MyrPsychologist]

When I run a game I only care about a "hodgepodge" if the purpose of the dipping and mixing is to break the character and create something that is overly powerful. Otherwise, I really and truly don't care how many strange levels you take or what classes you take. I don't care if you are literally a different class every level. To me, the classes are abstract concepts designed to provide a framework for most people to build their character around. Sure, on paper it might be weird to see an ex-barbarian/paladin/monk/ranger but I'm not the one playing that concept so I don't feel like it is my place to judge their story or concept. As long as the mechanics work, I'm a happy man.

[John Longarrow]

Caster 20 should never be an excuse to mess up the mundane classes. Find another way to help the mundane classes if you wish, without doing something dumb to them. Many of us don't have time for the complication of 10 different classes from 8 different books. Ditto for anything that causes different levels of optimization among players, especially complicated things that create a big learning curve for rookies or for those who wish to have a life outside of D&D. Banning anything that's too complicated and creates a power disparity is a fine idea.

Some multi-classing is fine for variety to keep it interesting, but 2 or 3 or eventually 3 or 4 is fine for that.

Plus casters benefit from having many PrCs too.

So ban all casters? That way you don't have to look through 8 different books for all the spells they are taking, plus the spell sections is a lot bigger than the class sections. Also avoids the player who's good at choosing and using their spells being waaaaaay over powered compared to the rookie hasn't played a caster before.


Course its still a lot easier to just look up the 8 classes that a player has then all the spells a caster could use. Just sayin...