Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lecen_of_Mitran 06-29-07, 03:46 AM	I was looking at the Players Handbook 3.5. and Iīve noticed that almost all classes get the best and maybe only benefits at lvl 1. Take a look at the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue, etc... I donīt know, but i think thatīs just weird... a class at lvl 20 should have great special abilities, but that doens't occur in the PHBīs classes. Iīve noticed that Wizards has tried to change that, all you have to do is take a look at the Scout. Itīs class abilities get better and better. Itīs not like the Paladin that at lvl 3-4 gets immunity to fear, special mount, lay on hands, etc etc and at lvl 20, gets... remove desease. :( No wonder people love so much about dipping. Itīs better to take 2 lvls in Fighter and go after something else than keep it til lvl 20. The barbarian with the pouce ability now itīs the same deal. So, what are your thoughts on these subject? Dip and the fact that the almost allclassses get the nicest abilities at the initial levels (not counting spells)?
HerbalTea 06-29-07, 03:54 AM	Over time, most of these abiltities get stronger and more useful as you progress through the levels in the same class. For instance, the rogue's sneak attack increases in damage etc. One of the reasons why the abilities are gained quite soon is so that the foundations are set for you to improve them by the time you reach 20.
Johnny_Angel 06-29-07, 04:09 AM	If your unsure, build a character using only 1 level of 20 different classes for your next character.
stargate525 06-29-07, 04:54 AM	If your unsure, build a character using only 1 level of 20 different classes for your next character. I dunno, if you want a real high save you can get one up to +60 that way.
Generic_NPC 06-29-07, 07:02 AM	I dunno, if you want a real high save you can get one up to +60 that way. I'm not sure that this would work quite like that, just because you'd need an average level 1 base save bonus to be +3, and to get twenty different levels that all adhere to this high standard would be difficult, but I would like to see a build if you have one handy.
Escef 06-29-07, 07:10 AM	I was looking at the Players Handbook 3.5. and Iīve noticed that almost all classes get the best and maybe only benefits at lvl 1. It was worse in 3.0. Just sayin'.
goawayugh 06-29-07, 10:00 AM	If your unsure, build a character using only 1 level of 20 different classes for your next character. You have insipred me...I gotta try this... If I come up with anything good, I'll post it on the CO Board.
goawayugh 06-29-07, 10:01 AM	It was worse in 3.0. Just sayin'. Yup. Take a look at the 3.0 Ranger. That was one of the main focuses when redoing the classes.
Prof. Pacali 06-29-07, 10:25 AM	Barbarian is the worst offender in 3.5 because of the Extra Rage feat. I rarely see anyone with more than two levels of Barbarian (1st for rage, 2nd for uncanny dodge).
Solik 06-29-07, 10:48 AM	3.5 is about dipping. That's simply all there is to it. Some people don't like it, because they cling to 2nd ed concepts of classes, where it's a specific sort of job and everyone fits neatly into one of them. Others recognize that class levels and (largely) free multiclassing are 3.x's way of letting people make original characters out of building blocks. I don't know if WotC did this on purpose to appeal to GURPS-style players, or if it was just poor design, part of the deal where casters get better abilities as they go, but no one else does.
RobbyPants 06-29-07, 11:52 AM	Yup. Take a look at the 3.0 Ranger. That was one of the main focuses when redoing the classes. Oh yeah. If you wanted to focus on TWF, you always took a level of ranger. You had two choices: Blow two feats on Ambidexterity and TWF, or take a level of ranger, get both, and also Track as a bonus feat. And the 3.0 ranger was so close to a fighter at that point anyway (d10 hit dice and only Fort as a good save) that it was stupid to go that route as a pure fighter. Paladin was another big offender. I wonder if the old 2E multiclassing system made WotC oblivious to what they were creating...
Hugin 06-29-07, 11:58 AM	3.5 is about dipping. That's simply all there is to it. Some people don't like it, because they cling to 2nd ed concepts of classes, where it's a specific sort of job and everyone fits neatly into one of them. Others recognize that class levels and (largely) free multiclassing are 3.x's way of letting people make original characters out of building blocks. I guess I'm a 'clinger'; but that goes back to classic D&D. 3E has given players an unprecedented amount of options and customization and some still use the excuse of "but I can't get my character concept without all this multiclassing". Translated, all that means is, "and can't get every ounce of power available if I don't dip". If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization. It isn't a wrong way to play, although it isn't my taste, I just have a difficult time understanding how people can't create their 'character concept' without having to use a this/that/the-other-thing/the-kitchen-sink mix.
MHolland 06-29-07, 12:06 PM	Progression does occur but I admit it weakens a bit at higher levels. I always thought of that as a tool to encourage players to multiclass into prestige classes more than anything else. So the trend would be to have a thousand characters who start as a paladin but end as something else rather than a thousand level 20 paladin, all clones of each other. Dipping was a side effect of the new system albeit one that was anticipated and considered as something that would happen. All that aside I don't see a lot of dipping going on honestly. I may see one person use "dipping" for every 25 characters or so I see in play.
Lecen_of_Mitran 06-29-07, 12:12 PM	I guess I'm a 'clinger'; but that goes back to classic D&D. 3E has given players an unprecedented amount of options and customization and some still use the excuse of "but I can't get my character concept without all this multiclassing". Translated, all that means is, "and can't get every ounce of power available if I don't dip". If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization. It isn't a wrong way to play, although it isn't my taste, I just have a difficult time understanding how people can't create their 'character concept' without having to use a this/that/the-other-thing/the-kitchen-sink mix. Beautiful. All you said (to me) is completely right. :D
Orchomenos 06-29-07, 01:40 PM	Many classes are better with a 2 levels dip: As said higher, Barbarians get Rage & Fast Movement at 1st and Uncanny Dodge at 2nd. Any spellcaster can take their first level as Bard, for access to bardic music, two good saves, many skill points and access to bardic spells: divine caster can use arcane wands, and arcane caster can use wands of Cure Wounds. Fighter: Usually two levels of fighters, for the bonus feats at the two first levels. Sometimes a 4-levels dips, for Weapon Specialisation. Or more if you are really feat intensive, for example if you want Whirlwind Attack + Improved Trip + Improved Disarm, causing chaos in your enemy's ranks... A Monk gains something interesting at each level. You could take one level dip to have your WIS modifier to AC, or go all the way. For Paladin, 2 levels are usually better, to have Divine Grace. 2 levels are better for Ranger as well, for the combat style. With Rogue, it's either 1 for the skills & sneak attack, 2 for Evasion or 3 for a better sneak attack. I've skipped the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer & Wizard classes. You can take a level dip of a spellcasting class, but first level spells are just that, first level spells, plus the ability to use some wands. If you want to multiclass, you usually need a Prestige Class that keeps the spellcasting progression, otherwise you're a weak spellcaster.
Solik 06-29-07, 02:46 PM	3E has given players an unprecedented amount of options and customization and some still use the excuse of "but I can't get my character concept without all this multiclassing". Translated, all that means is, "and can't get every ounce of power available if I don't dip". If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization. That's a rather presumptuous thing to say. I guess it's not worse than what I said that you responded to, though. Optimization is one way to look at it, sure, but another way to look at it is detail. Sure, I could play a pirate as a rogue. I could play the same pirate as a fighter/swashbuckler/rogue/dervish/scarlet corsair. The former is a plain vanilla rogue that I'm flavoring as a pirate. The latter is a character with a very specific and largely unique fighting style that I have devised just for it to fit the exact role I wanted. Of course, I can't really say for sure whether or not it's more optimal than a pure rogue. It has less sneak attack, fewer skills, and lower reflex and will saves (used arcane stunt instead of grace on swashbuckler, and missed too many third-level +1 will saves due to dipping). It gets more BAB and HP, better feint maneuvers, more feats, higher fort saves, and better combat maneuverability. Since I was focusing more on a maneuverable pirate combatant, this build works better than a vanilla rogue or swashbuckler, or even a combination thereof. It fits more closely my character idea, and it's very unique (and fun) in mechanical play. It is, of course, virtually identical in roleplay, with the added bonus of the mechanics actually matching closely my roleplay rather than me having to rely on hand-waving and abstraction.
Hugin 06-29-07, 03:54 PM	That's a rather presumptuous thing to say. I guess it's not worse than what I said that you responded to, though. I don't think I presumed anything. I said 'some' use dipping to optimize (create a 'build') under the pretense of character concept. I never intended to make a absolute statement. Optimization is one way to look at it, sure, but another way to look at it is detail. Sure, I could play a pirate as a rogue. Exactly. You can play a pirate as a rogue. That's the point. I said if you 'can't' create a character concept using one or two classes your aim is the build itself not the character concept. I could play the same pirate as a fighter/swashbuckler/rogue/dervish/scarlet corsair. The former is a plain vanilla rogue that I'm flavoring as a pirate. The whole idea behind 3E is player options and flexibility. 'Plain vanilla' is relative. With all the feat and skill options available I'm sure he could be made different than other pirates. ...and it's very unique (and fun) in mechanical play. This is what it all boils down to, gaining something mechanical. It isn't 'Here's a pirate, let me tell you about him... and his 'build' reflects this, it becomes 'Here's my pirate, let me tell you about him. He has this ability and that ability and that is why he's fun'. It is, of course, virtually identical in roleplay, with the added bonus of the mechanics actually matching closely my roleplay rather than me having to rely on hand-waving and abstraction. Roleplaying [I]is hand-waving and abstraction, even with all the other mechanical options. Roleplaying is using your imagination. The only purpose of a class is to provide a foundational aptitude for the character. The only purpose of having all those extra classes is to provide mechanical benefit I know I'm sounding a bit 'old school' (and I am) but I'm not trying to say that what you described is bad gaming. I just think people should just call it was it is. I personally find it slants more towards video-gaming than roleplaying.
PurinaDragonChow 06-29-07, 04:07 PM	If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization. It isn't a wrong way to play, although it isn't my taste, I just have a difficult time understanding how people can't create their 'character concept' without having to use a this/that/the-other-thing/the-kitchen-sink mix. And optimization is a bad thing? Everybody optimizes their characters. Assuming I have a high level wizard, am I not going to select spells that I think will be most useful in the situation I expect to see? I have zero problem with players in my game mutliclassing, dipping, whatever. It isn't a problem. My game is more about the players having fun than it is about me enforcing my ideas of what their characters should be on them.
jaelis 06-29-07, 04:51 PM	I wouldn't say that most classes have their best abilities up front. Many classes have good abilities up front, but that's not the same thing. Barbarian is probably the worst, but the improved rages are nice if you stick with the class, and the damage reduction isn't nothing.
Tealgorthian 06-29-07, 05:31 PM	Hugin, what's the difference between someone puts just as much effort into their roleplaying as the enxt guy, but also puts a ton of effort into the mechanical side of the game, vs the guy that just picked one base class and sticks to it? (Holy run on sentance!) Neither one is right or wrong, it just reflects a different kind of brain. My wife and I both heavy roleplay our characters. I tend to use 5-6 different classes, whereas she tends to top out at 2 base 1 PrC. Most of the time, just 1 base and 1 PrC. Why? I don't mind the extra math and time involved in making a character that way. She hates it. (Because she hates math. You should see her buying skills. "How many do I get at max? 4? Okay, these 4!")
Hugin 06-29-07, 05:49 PM	And optimization is a bad thing? Why are you asking a question I answered directly in the post you quoted? "It isn't a wrong way to play", it's just not the way my group of players like. Everybody optimizes their characters. I believe this an assumption. Generally, people create their characters to be good at what they do. Optimizing a character is about making him the best he can be, and is sometimes done with no regard to character concept. Sometimes, the character concept is based on an optimized build. An example of optimization: picking a weapon for damage or critical threat range reasons over a weapon the character prefers based on your character sketch (profile). Assuming I have a high level wizard, am I not going to select spells that I think will be most useful in the situation I expect to see? I hardly call that character optimization. That is strategic use of a character's already available resources. I have zero problem with players in my game mutliclassing, dipping, whatever. It isn't a problem. My game is more about the players having fun than it is about me enforcing my ideas of what their characters should be on them. I never said people can't play that way. If that is fun for your group than have fun. But don't call all that mechanical optimization your character concept. It's a build.
Solik 06-29-07, 06:33 PM	I don't think I presumed anything. I said 'some' use dipping to optimize (create a 'build') under the pretense of character concept. I never intended to make a absolute statement. This is a pretty unnecessary side-discussion, but for the record, you did also say: "If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization." If you really want to try to stick to that opinion, then I really don't have to point past the Fochlucan Lyrist to prove you wrong (minimum classes: 4). I could also point out racial paragon classes, which have only 3 levels total; so, for example, any standard multiclasser who goes with racial paragon levels can't take that very far, and will have to supply a third class when its levels run out. I said if you 'can't' create a character concept using one or two classes your aim is the build itself not the character concept. Problem here is that you are assuming that capabilities are not part of a concept. And, in fact, sometimes they're not. But sometimes they are, and not just in a "I want to get big bonuses on my attacks" sort of way. Instead, it's more like "I want to be a trained sword-dancer that spins into the midst of enemies and makes multiple attacks while moving about." And that may or may not have a lot to do with the intended personality and backstory of the character in question. This is what it all boils down to, gaining something mechanical. It isn't 'Here's a pirate, let me tell you about him... [insert background, personality, ambitions, etc.] and his 'build' reflects this, it becomes 'Here's my pirate, let me tell you about him. He has this ability and that ability and that is why he's fun'. This goes back to what I was saying above. I can give you background, personality, and ambitions of a character that could then be played as either a fighter or a sorcerer. But to do that, I have to leave out stuff like what the individual is good at or interested in, what training he may have received, and how his personality plays into his combat style. Sometimes, there might be good reason to do this. I've argued in other threads that divorcing mechanics from roleplay can be very useful, particularly when the mechanics are insufficient to support what you're going for, or interfere more than they help. But other times, it's nice for a character's background to be reflected in their capabilities. For instance, the pirate character I mentioned above began as a sailor, then as a naval officer that hunted pirates, then as a privateer, then an outcast / skulk (rogue), turning to land-based adventuring for awhile before finally captaining a pirate ship. Going pure rogue can capture all that, just not as well as the build I outlined. So, yes, I would, in fact, say that the build reflects the personality. In this particular case, I actually wrote up both at the same time; they sort of inspired each other. Roleplaying is hand-waving and abstraction, even with all the other mechanical options. Roleplaying is using your imagination. The only purpose of a class is to provide a foundational aptitude for the character. The only purpose of having all those extra classes is to provide mechanical benefit Well, I guess you could repeat that all day long if you wanted, but I'm pretty sure I just proved you directly wrong through my example. Besides, I sure as hell wouldn't be playing what is essentially a dexterity-based fighter if mechanical power was my goal. I personally find it slants more towards video-gaming than roleplaying. This statement is nonsense. An example of optimization: picking a weapon for damage or critical threat range reasons over a weapon the character prefers based on your character sketch (profile). No, that's an example of laziness. A player who actually intends to optimize a character that has a preferred weapon will find ways to utilize the advantages of the weapon, and it only makes sense to be doing so. A warrior who makes a living killing stuff that tries to kill him back is going to make sure he takes full advantage of his tools if he intends to stay alive. Furthermore, if he has affinity for a given weapon type to begin with, then it's likely that it suits him very well (from a physical standpoint perhaps, or from a mental fighting style one). Otherwise, he probably wouldn't care much for it.
DoveArrow 06-29-07, 07:20 PM	If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization. Even though I'm really tempted to throw my :twocents: into this discussion, I think it's time we all agree to disagree on this matter. After all, it's really a matter of opinion whether a character concept is best served by multiclassing or by going straight class, and I think it's best that we leave it at that. I was looking at the Players Handbook 3.5. and Iīve noticed that almost all classes get the best and maybe only benefits at lvl 1. Not to fret, my friend, you're not the first person to have noticed this. In fact, there's a whole article on the issue of what they call 'dead levels' (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) in D&D. You might want to check it out.
Lecen_of_Mitran 06-29-07, 08:08 PM	Even though I'm really tempted to throw my :twocents: into this discussion, I think it's time we all agree to disagree on this matter. After all, it's really a matter of opinion whether a character concept is best served by multiclassing or by going straight class, and I think it's best that we leave it at that. Not to fret, my friend, you're not the first person to have noticed this. In fact, there's a whole article on the issue of what they call 'dead levels' (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061013a) in D&D. You might want to check it out. I saw them before and you have to agree with me that they are ridiculous. It didnīt change anything! Anyway, just wanted to say again that I agree with Hugin. But itīs a fact that multiclasse/straith class or roleplay/minmax and all those old discussions have your sides. The problem is that the way the classes are designed, it seems like the developers tried to incentive the minmaxers.
Hugin 06-29-07, 08:26 PM	This is a pretty unnecessary side-discussion, but for the record, you did also say: "If a character's concept can't be created using one or two classes, the player isn't striving for the concept of the character, he wants the concept of optimization." I think we're having a bit of difference in terminology. I'm separating the essence of who a character is from his mechanical make-up. Write me up a character concept in as many pages as you'd like it to be and I can create it using core rules only. I could do it in classic D&D with four classes and demi-human races as classes and it can be done in 3E (though 3E makes it super-easy). The reason for this is only because I'm separating the character's essence from his rules-specific abilities. What I mean by that is when making a character concept I'm not looking at some special ability and saying that is the concept. If you really want to try to stick to that opinion, then I really don't have to point past the Fochlucan Lyrist to prove you wrong (minimum classes: 4). I could also point out racial paragon classes, which have only 3 levels total; so, for example, any standard multiclasser who goes with racial paragon levels can't take that very far, and will have to supply a third class when its levels run out. lol! What the heck is a Fochlucan Lyrist? You're absolutely right about that, but how many people wanted a Fochlucan Lyrist concept before it was created as a ... (class, PrC, ???). In this case, the build comes before the concept. Or rather the build is the concept. Problem here is that you are assuming that capabilities are not part of a concept. And, in fact, sometimes they're not. But sometimes they are, and not just in a "I want to get big bonuses on my attacks" sort of way. Instead, it's more like "I want to be a trained sword-dancer that spins into the midst of enemies and makes multiple attacks while moving about." And that may or may not have a lot to do with the intended personality and backstory of the character in question. In classic that could be a fighter that has a propensity not to stay in the same place each round. In 3E it could be a fighter with Spring Attack and ranks in Perform (dance). This goes back to what I was saying above. I can give you background, personality, and ambitions of a character that could then be played as either a fighter or a sorcerer. But to do that, I have to leave out stuff like what the individual is good at or interested in, what training he may have received, and how his personality plays into his combat style. You'd have to leave those things out? Why? There is no reason whatsoever why those things would have to be left, unless, your desire is a specific mechanic. Do you see the point I'm making? Sometimes, there might be good reason to do this. I've argued in other threads that divorcing mechanics from roleplay can be very useful, particularly when the mechanics are insufficient to support what you're going for, or interfere more than they help. That's good, and I'm not saying using mechanics to bring a character concept together is wrong. I just don't like the excuse that optional rules from non-core are needed for the character concept. If the character can't be created using core than it is the mechanic that the person desires, not the concept/essence. But other times, it's nice for a character's background to be reflected in their capabilities. For instance, the pirate character I mentioned above began as a sailor, then as a naval officer that hunted pirates, then as a privateer, then an outcast / skulk (rogue), turning to land-based adventuring for awhile before finally captaining a pirate ship. Going pure rogue can capture all that, just not as well as the build I outlined. I agree. I'm only arguing about when someone says they can't make that character without using all those extra classes. And to be honest, how many people actually have a story flow like the one you provided before picking the classes. You may have done it for that example but that it a rare thing. Well, I guess you could repeat that all day long if you wanted, but I'm pretty sure I just proved you directly wrong through my example. I'm not sure how. You didn't redefine roleplaying and the only difference between the straight rogue and that multiclass creation is purely in mechanical functioning. This statement is nonsense. Firstly, that was a statement of personal view. My view is not nonsense and neither is yours. They are just different. Now, here's why I see it that way. A video game can only interact using the mechanical aspects of character build. You could write as much background and personality on that character as you'd like but it wouldn't affect the game at all. The reason for the slant towards video games is that the only difference between the rogue and the multiclass is mechanical; the only aspect a video game understands. Optimizing can be seen as going through all the screens of creating a video game character and figuring out all the best combinations. In a video game, mechanical advantage is of prime concern. No, that's an example of laziness. A player who actually intends to optimize a character that has a preferred weapon will find ways to utilize the advantages of the weapon, and it only makes sense to be doing so. You've given a similar example as the wizard choosing which spells to memorize given the knowledge of what he expects to come ahead. Of course the fighter will try to utilize his weapon to greatest effect he knows how. But that is a case of optimizing what you have. I was talking about a player choosing weapons according to mechanical benefit without regard to any established character preference. An example is the player wanting a more powerful one-handed weapon from a supplement than his current two-handed weapon because it is 'better'. The character would have no clue but because the player wants it. That is video-game mentality, not roleplay mentality. Even though I'm really tempted to throw my into this discussion, I think it's time we all agree to disagree on this matter. After all, it's really a matter of opinion whether a character concept is best served by multiclassing or by going straight class, and I think it's best that we leave it at that. I'm done with this as well but I'll finish with this: it isn't about the character concept being best served by dipping, it is about play-style. Hopefully that will satisfy everyone.
Sim_antix 06-29-07, 08:26 PM	I disagree with the OP completely... Barbarian Level 5: Improved uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked or sneak attacked) Level 17: Tireless Rage (no longer fatigued after raging) Level 20: Mighty Rage (better rage abilities) Monk Level 4: Ki Strike & Slow Fall (no explanation required) Level 7: Wholeness of Body (healing good...) Level 9: Improved Evasion (cause no damage rules!) Level 11: Diamond Body (immunity to poison never hurts) Level 13: Diamond Soul (SR good...) Level 17: Timeless Body (bye bye aging penalties, hello aging bonuses) Paladin Level 4: 1st Level Spells Level 8: 2nd Level Spells Level 11: 3rd Level Spells Level 14: 4th Level Spells Ranger Level 4: Animal Companion (hello meat shield) Level 6: Improved Combat Style (free feats good...) Level 11: Combat Style Mastery (free feats still good...) Level 17: Hide in Plain Sight (nough said) Rogue Level 8: Improved Uncanny Dodge (see Barbarian) Level 19: Sneak Attack +10d6 (are you kidding me?) There it is so are you still trying to tell me that these are dip classes? I mean yeah sure the fighter is an obvious dip class cause of the extra feats but none of these are.
Lecen_of_Mitran 06-29-07, 11:23 PM	I disagree with the OP completely... Barbarian Level 5: Improved uncanny Dodge (can't be flanked or sneak attacked) Level 17: Tireless Rage (no longer fatigued after raging) Level 20: Mighty Rage (better rage abilities) Monk Level 4: Ki Strike & Slow Fall (no explanation required) Level 7: Wholeness of Body (healing good...) Level 9: Improved Evasion (cause no damage rules!) Level 11: Diamond Body (immunity to poison never hurts) Level 13: Diamond Soul (SR good...) Level 17: Timeless Body (bye bye aging penalties, hello aging bonuses) Paladin Level 4: 1st Level Spells Level 8: 2nd Level Spells Level 11: 3rd Level Spells Level 14: 4th Level Spells Ranger Level 4: Animal Companion (hello meat shield) Level 6: Improved Combat Style (free feats good...) Level 11: Combat Style Mastery (free feats still good...) Level 17: Hide in Plain Sight (nough said) Rogue Level 8: Improved Uncanny Dodge (see Barbarian) Level 19: Sneak Attack +10d6 (are you kidding me?) There it is so are you still trying to tell me that these are dip classes? I mean yeah sure the fighter is an obvious dip class cause of the extra feats but none of these are. With the exception of the Barbarian and the Rogue, yes, there is something wrong in there. Monks has several abilities, almost all are worthless, youīre probably one of the few that thing that this class is worth something. Paladin get spells and... remove disease... oh, great... now letīs take a look at the Cleric... he can do that! and much better! And with no special ability except for turn undead! Ranger get fighter feats... ow.. amazing... and spells... ow... letīs take a look at the Druid... īNuff Said.
Sim_antix 06-30-07, 01:01 AM	With the exception of the Barbarian and the Rogue, yes, there is something wrong in there. Ok lets have a look then shall we? Monks has several abilities, almost all are worthless, youīre probably one of the few that thing that this class is worth something. The monk has decent abilities that, although not as awesome as a casters, still make them a decent character. If I am one of the "few" that thinks this way then I guess whatever, but they still arent a dip class. Paladin get spells and... remove disease... oh, great... now letīs take a look at the Cleric... he can do that! and much better! And with no special ability except for turn undead! Ok but the cleric doesn't get perfect BA, and even if you take a variant that does give it to you this isn't about comparing classes to see whats better, its about determining whether it is worth advancing past level 1 or 2 in these classes. Yes, yes it is. Ranger get fighter feats... ow.. amazing... and spells... ow... letīs take a look at the Druid... īNuff Said. Again I never said that Ranger > Druid. I said that the ranger is not a dip class, which it isn't.
goawayugh 06-30-07, 02:13 AM	The monk has decent abilities that, although not as awesome as a casters, still make them a decent character. If I am one of the "few" that thinks this way then I guess whatever, but they still arent a dip class. You wouldn't take a dip into Monk just for Wis to AC (not to mention +2 to ALL saves)? For a high Wis or low armor class, this is WELL worth it. Again I never said that Ranger > Druid. I said that the ranger is not a dip class, which it isn't. No? Level 1: Track, Favored Enemy, TONS of skills, +1 BAB, +2 on two saves. Level2: +1 BAB, +1 on two saves, FREE combat feat. Again, WELL worth a 1 or 2 level dip for a combat oriented character. This is not saying that the classes are worthless later on. In fact, both of those are good classes to stick with (especially Ranger). I'm just saying that they are also good as dips.
Waterhammer 06-30-07, 02:13 AM	The Ranger also gets good skill progression. Which is worth something. Especially when the full BAB is factored in. You can expect to play Ranger, and be needed, or at least useful, all the way to 20th. The Rogue would appreciate the scouting buddy, who can stand, and fight if need be.
UltimateReality 06-30-07, 04:52 AM	The problem is that the way the classes are designed, it seems like the developers tried to incentive the minmaxers.The game designers have come out and admitted that they designed 3rd edition to reward what's called "system mastery". Much the same way as Magic rewards those with money to spend on cards and time to spend reading through them all, playtesting them, and judging their relative worth, D&D 3 -- and by extension, 3.5 -- are set up to reward those who have the money to buy all the splat books, the time to read everything, and the ability to judge and play extensively. The game inherently rewards strategists more than casual players. Personally, I think they should drop this approach. It makes the game unfun. Some people just like to play fighters. Why should their effectiveness get shafted because any full progression caster is automatically better? Further, if I want to play an effective character that contributes over the majority of the time I'm going to be adventuring -- why should I be practically shoehorned into those same full progression caster classes? Lame. WotC can do better. If I could have WotC do any one thing in 4th edition, it would be to eliminate this element of gameplay. Someone with 2 hours a week to make a character should be able to contribute to the group mechanically as much as someone who has 40 hours a week to build their character. The system's primary focus should be making your idea of a fun character viable -- not forcing you to use half a dozen splatbooks to build something mostly workable.
Reversefigure4 06-30-07, 06:05 AM	You wouldn't take a dip into Monk just for Wis to AC (not to mention +2 to ALL saves)? For a high Wis or low armor class, this is WELL worth it. This isn't that stunning a dip. Take a cleric - with an impressive 18 wisdom, he gets... +4 to AC. The same thing he'd get of a 100gp chain shirt, and much less protection than full plate (unless he wants to have 18 dex as well - hope he didn't want Con!). There's other bonuses to that Monk level, but they aren't so good against a lost spellcasting level that it's an automatic must-have.
Johnny_Angel 06-30-07, 06:39 AM	You have insipred me...I gotta try this... If I come up with anything good, I'll post it on the CO Board. Could you link me to your post when/if you complete building a character this way?
kelvinaw273 06-30-07, 07:04 AM	This isn't that stunning a dip. Take a cleric - with an impressive 18 wisdom, he gets... +4 to AC. The same thing he'd get of a 100gp chain shirt, and much less protection than full plate (unless he wants to have 18 dex as well - hope he didn't want Con!). There's other bonuses to that Monk level, but they aren't so good against a lost spellcasting level that it's an automatic must-have. Great for your Mystic Theurge who has to take Practiced Caster twice anyway and avoid heavy armour, though. I agree that 'dipping' isn't all bad, but that 'system mastery' should not be the goal of the game. Problem is it's an RPG, and the fun for many (not all, I'm not trying to be elitist) is in the RP side. On the other hand, WotC are a commercial company and want to make money, of which there isn't that much in traditional RPGs. Problem is that 'system mastery' optimization is a false reward, because your DM will up the ante on powerful characters anyway, but it is OK for producing a unique character rather than a power build.
Hugin 06-30-07, 10:39 AM	Very well said, kelvinaw273. That was basically what I was trying to get at through all my rambling.
Sim_antix 06-30-07, 10:43 AM	You wouldn't take a dip into Monk just for Wis to AC (not to mention +2 to ALL saves)? For a high Wis or low armor class, this is WELL worth it. No? Level 1: Track, Favored Enemy, TONS of skills, +1 BAB, +2 on two saves. Level2: +1 BAB, +1 on two saves, FREE combat feat. Again, WELL worth a 1 or 2 level dip for a combat oriented character. This is not saying that the classes are worthless later on. In fact, both of those are good classes to stick with (especially Ranger). I'm just saying that they are also good as dips. Sure they make decent dips for different reasons, but that isn't what is being debated here. The debate is whether they are useful beyond just a dip and quite frankly yes they are. Could you link me to your post when/if you complete building a character this way? It has been done, I have seen it, it sucks. I would link you to it, but I am fairly certain that it is archived now.
Lecen_of_Mitran 06-30-07, 11:48 AM	I still believe that D&D is game that incentive Min/Maxers and Munchkins, take a look at: I actually made a centaur fighter/cavalier that is amazing with a lance. He gets x8 damage on a charge and I've used a combination of feats and magic items to allow him to wield a gargantuan lance without penalty. This is just an absurd. What I said about this: Do you really believe that the designers had in mind a PC that is capable of doing x7 damage on a charge? Or that he is able to equip a gargantuan lance too? Where is your good sense, BTW? And most important: where is your DM to stop this munchkin apocalypse? P.S.: Please, tell me how you got a gargantuan weapon without penalty. Thereīs something wrong in here...
Sim_antix 06-30-07, 11:57 AM	Every RPG can be min/maxed or munchkinized. Every single one. The thing you have to realize is that there are always going to be people who wish to build the strongest character possible and will research the rules and mechanics until they figure out how to do so. This is not the fault of the game, at all. Did they design D&D to be a "system mastery" type of game? Maybe. I won't argue the designers intent, but whether they did or didn't doesn't matter since the optimizers would turn it into a "system mastery" game either way. As long as everyone in your group has the same, or comparable, levels of system mastery then the game will run smoothly and there are no problems.
IRememberCecil 06-30-07, 12:05 PM	Do you really believe that the designers had in mind a PC that is capable of doing x7 damage on a charge? Or that he is able to equip a gargantuan lance too? Where is your good sense, BTW? And most important: where is your DM to stop this munchkin apocalypse? The game designers had a game in mind where people could play whatever character concept they wanted without someone going online to verbally abuse them. Supplements are for using, not for buying and going "Aaaah!" at. Also, there is nothing wrong with dipping. At all. People dip in real life for no better reason than "I felt like it". If they can in real life, they can in D&D. No. Exceptions.
Escef 06-30-07, 12:23 PM	People dip in real life for no better reason than "I felt like it". Indeed, after several years spent in the expert class (focusing on the most useless knowledge skills I could find) I multiclassed into a varient fighter (armor proficiency:modern, weapon proficiency:firearms, etc.). Just as people from many professions in later years go into teaching or the military because they feel they can make true contributions to society that way. I'd be willing to bet many Army Rangers in D&D terms would be fighter/rogues, not rangers.
Sim_antix 06-30-07, 01:55 PM	powergamers or min/maxers, even going as far as lumping the two groups into one. Aren't they the same though? I thought it was Power Gamers/Min/Maxers/Optimizers and the so called Munchkins that were different, in as much as Power Gamers/Min Maxers/Optimizers use the rules to make the best character possible whereas the Munchkins attempt to break or distort the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage. If I am mistaken please show me how.
IRememberCecil 06-30-07, 02:14 PM	Aren't they the same though? I thought it was Power Gamers/Min/Maxers/Optimizers and the so called Munchkins that were different, in as much as Power Gamers/Min Maxers/Optimizers use the rules to make the best character possible whereas the Munchkins attempt to break or distort the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage. If I am mistaken please show me how. The consensus is that powergamers tend to make mechanically powerful characters with less emphasis on personality or background. Min/maxers aren't all that unlike powergamers, but they place more emphasis maximizing power and minimizing weaknesses (IIRC). Optimizers can best be described as using a power drill instead of a screw driver. Lecen_of_Mitran here has a history of lumping them together and referring to them as rollplayers or munchkins, apparently not overly enthusiastic about showing respect for them.
Solik 07-02-07, 07:05 PM	I'm separating the essence of who a character is from his mechanical make-up. I understand this. I'm arguing that that's only part of a concept. Write me up a character concept in as many pages as you'd like it to be and I can create it using core rules only. Yeah. So can I. I can also do it with the three generic classes in Unearthed Arcana. I can also do it with the NPC classes alone. However, doing this requires taking a step (or six) back in terms of abstraction. Let me give a simpleminded example. Say I created a character who, as part of his backstory, trained under a specific teacher who had perfected a certain style. This teacher passed down his training (along with some moral lessons, etc) onto my character. Now assume I started going into detail. I described the style quite specifically, including some signature moves. I explain why these techniques were invented (anyone who makes up combat maneuvers has a very specific reason for doing so) and describe specifically how they work. Now let's say that it is possible to directly implement these maneuvers using various D&D rules (Core or otherwise, I don't care). Therefore, I construct my character so that I get access to the abilities (feats, class abilities, skill tricks, what have you) that allow me to do these things. It may very well require multiclassing to pull this off, but what does that matter? I can have my character capable of doing exactly what I describe him as being capable of doing, so why in the world shouldn't I do it? So, what if I chose a "simpler" method of implementation? For example, if it was a movement-based trick that required Arcane Stunt: Expeditious Retreat, Dervish Dance, and Sneak Attack, I just took Fighter levels and used Spring Attack. Would it be the same maneuver? No! You can count the number of feet I move around during the trick. You can count the number of enemies I'm able to strike and the number of attacks I'm able to make. Prerequisites for the maneuver change (slashing weapons no longer required, for instance). You can measure the difference in damage, as well as gauge the different circumstances where the maneuver has real use (such as in surprise rounds or in flanking situations). Those are more than just mechanical details. They are descriptions of the circumstances that exist in the game! Yes, you can abstract them out. Yes, sometimes you need to for the game to make sense. But does that mean you should just because you can? If you're going to pay less attention to what's actually happening in the game and hand-wave around it, you should get some benefit from it (such as adding realism that the mechanics don't allow for). If your benefit is not having to multiclass... I really question the point. Basically, what you're doing is allowing for less accuracy in mechanical implementation of concepts. But I assume you're still drawing a line somewhere, saying "well, if you go beyond <this>, you're not really building the character you described... so all this stuff is okay." Because if you're not, then you could reduce the game to a sheet-free series of coin flips. So what makes your line special? What about moving it in the direction of accuracy in implementation suddenly makes people only interested in mechanical optimization? At one point, you state outright that character concept is not "best served" by dipping; it's about play style. Um, excuse me? How exactly is a character concept not "best served" by accurate mechanical representation of said concept? lol! What the heck is a Fochlucan Lyrist? Fochlucan Lyrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fochlucan_Lyrist) I think it came from one of the game worlds' lore (Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms), but I can't remember. At any rate, it requires Evasion, Bardic Knowledge, and the Druid language just to join (making levels in it your fourth class). In 3E it could be a fighter with Spring Attack and ranks in Perform (dance). It could -- if you ignored the "multiple attacks" and "multiple enemies" parts. And the Perform ranks you put on there are entirely cosmetic, as that grants no in-game capabilities that actually reflect the capabilities requested. It may say dance, but it's what it does that matters in terms of representing my concept. And to be honest, how many people actually have a story flow like the one you provided before picking the classes. You may have done it for that example but that it a rare thing. I don't know about that. I do wing it sometimes, though. Like my Divine Bard / Paladin of Freedom / Songmaiden of Selune. Now there is a character that would be really, really tough to represent in Core. I could probably do it with Cleric / Bard, but then I'm juggling two spell lists that function differently and come from different sources, and that can actually be important in certain circumstances (like if I lose favor with my deity and am denied divine spellcasting -- I'd still have those bard spells). You didn't redefine roleplaying and the only difference between the straight rogue and that multiclass creation is purely in mechanical functioning. You know, I think the problem is that you are using a strange definition of "mechanical functioning" that probably changes when convenient (although I doubt you realize that). For instance, being able to run 160 feet per round as opposed to a 120 feet per round is mechanical functioning, but it's also a very specific and noticeable trait that can have big impact on the character, its backstory, and its style. Unless you just want to hand-wave away the sprinting capabilities of the track star at your school as " irrelevant mechanics" or something. The reason for the slant towards video games is that the only difference between the rogue and the multiclass is mechanical; the only aspect a video game understands. This is a very silly path to go down. The only difference between a wizard and a barbarian is mechanical, too. Min/maxers aren't all that unlike powergamers, but they place more emphasis maximizing power and minimizing weaknesses (IIRC). There's two meanings to the term. It can mean pouring all your resources into a few specific things, so that you maximize those values and minimize others that you don't care about (the notion of a "dump stat" taken to extreme). It can also mean what you describe. A "min/maxer" is simply someone who uses that technique. They may do it as part of powergaming, or as part of optimizing, or because they want to play a character who's really strong and really stupid, for fun. Ultimately, it's the least useful term in the bunch.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 04:36 AM	Well, hopefully all of these frontloaded classes and dead levels will go bye-bye when you know what hits. The old talent trees for class abilities and feats should do the trick.