Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


DnD3.5e: Flavour vs Crunch: Multiclassing and Dipping

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
You are free to argue, disagree or protest my stance, but it does not change my opinion that 1-2dips are unclean. You are entitled to your opinion and I am equality entitled to mine, but we are also entitled to think that each others' opinions are silly.
Except that you attack the players who make these builds and claim they only care about the mechanics and pulling the whole role vs roll play fallacies. Which is empirically untrue. And put effort into trying to convince other GMs of this opinion so that they would deny such builds into their game. Thus eliminating opportunities for dip-players to have fun.

So... uh... there's that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
If you can refluff an abomination of multiple classes as "The Warrior", why cannot you refluff the Warblade as "The Ranger".
Ranger has a lot of skills and abilities which Warblades don't get. Even if you could refluff it, though, that's not my point - why should you have to do it one way, and not the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
So basically, you would dip to the warblade not because it's relevant to your theme (you can retroactively claim it's relevant anyway), but because it gives you "more options" and cherry top with it "flavorful and fun"?
It's a bit of both. Obviously the Warblade option is mechanically stronger. However, if my theme is anything other than "full-attack with two short swords. Repeatedly", then getting more options does fit my theme. I'd say Wolf Fang Strike (for example) fits every dual-wielder's theme, in fact. Could I get that through Martial Study? Yeah. How is that any different. I need just as much RP story to explain how my character learnt Martial Study: Wolf Fang Strike as I would to explain how he took a level or two of Warblade.

If you're going to say 1-2 level dips are disgusting, I could say that taking feats which give you abilities from other classes (Martial Study, Shape Soulmeld, Bind Vestige, etc) are just as disgusting. A Wizard with Weapon Focus? A Fighter with Shape Soulmeld? Preposterous!

If e.g. a dip in barbarian allows the fighter to stay useful for a couple of more levels, why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbender View Post
If e.g. a dip in barbarian allows the fighter to stay be useful for a couple of more maybe two levels, why not?
There, fixed that for you.

The only time when crunch and fluff are actually related is in organization prerequisites for feats and Prestige Classes. At no other time are they tied in any way.

I've had simple character concepts that were best represented by dips all over the place. I've also had extremely complex concepts that are best represented with a single class. Heck, I've even had character concepts that were best represented by something besides the obvious.

For example, I once had a chieftan of a tribe who was known as an unstoppable combatant, ignoring the blows of his enemies in the throes of his legendary rage.

He was a pure Crusader.

I've always considered fluff to be entirely optional. If a player wants to go for a specific prestige class, but is not of the right alignment or hasn't met a member of some secretive order, why ruin his fun for such details? I'd even waive feat or ability requirements or replace them with other feats that fit his concept better. Most prestige classes are underpowered anyway.

I regularly do it with monsters as well. Can't find stats for the guardian of the Golden temple? Just take some demon and describe it as having gold armor and swords instead of claws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
There, fixed that for you.
Depends on your style of play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedronai View Post
This is a pretty strong categorical claim. I don't suppose you'd be willing to back it up?

Or are you saying that '[not even] deep, engaging, and rich backstory justify class dips'?
As this discussion revolves entirely on subjective opinions and "justification" varies from person to person on regards to what is appropriate in building your character, there is nothing objective to fortify a PREFERENCE. But if I must;

I reckon 1-2dips are not intended in DnD, especially dips to prestige classes. Mechanics are firm and objective, while backstories are "homebrew" and using "homebrew" self-made material to justify the disrespect to the class is bad taste. Sure it's RAW legal and you have the absolute right and privilege to dip as many as you want, but it doesn't make it less gross.

Give me a character that a cleric dip, a tattooed monk dip, a spellsword or a warblade dip is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the theme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
Except that you attack the players who make these builds and claim they only care about the mechanics and pulling the whole role vs roll play fallacies. Which is empirically untrue. And put effort into trying to convince other GMs of this opinion so that they would deny such builds into their game. Thus eliminating opportunities for dip-players to have fun.

So... uh... there's that.
No attacks here. If my brash behavior previously made you think it was some sort of attack towards the defenders of FUN, then sure. I was merely asking what was the exact purpose of the dips and how it relates to the backstory. And one of you guys after my questions, admitted the warblade wasn't even necessary, it was just simply to add more "options". Explain how the Hiten Mitsurugi build works. Just do.

And please do not use the word empirical in the matters of personal taste. Please don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
Ranger has a lot of skills and abilities which Warblades don't get. Even if you could refluff it, though, that's not my point - why should you have to do it one way, and not the other?

It's a bit of both. Obviously the Warblade option is mechanically stronger. However, if my theme is anything other than "full-attack with two short swords. Repeatedly", then getting more options does fit my theme. I'd say Wolf Fang Strike (for example) fits every dual-wielder's theme, in fact. Could I get that through Martial Study? Yeah. How is that any different. I need just as much RP story to explain how my character learnt Martial Study: Wolf Fang Strike as I would to explain how he took a level or two of Warblade.
Like Half-druid levels in Animal companion and a stunted Wild Empathy? WITH multiclassing? Track is a feat, Skill Knowledge is a feat. Do the warblade justice and make it half of your classes instead of just dipping on it.

And the point was; If you're so eager to refluff some weird chimera as if it's one homogeneous class, why not simply stay loyal to one or two classes if it can replicate your theme just fine AND refluff it? (Since refluffing is no problem for you anyway.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFred View Post
f you're going to say 1-2 level dips are disgusting, I could say that taking feats which give you abilities from other classes (Martial Study, Shape Soulmeld, Bind Vestige, etc) are just as disgusting. A Wizard with Weapon Focus? A Fighter with Shape Soulmeld? Preposterous
Sure, you are free to believe whatever that is you believe.

And if I am incapable of driving what I'm trying to say home, I'll say this;
You do not need my approval to dip to 9001 classes nor my opinion necessary for your character themes.

A good rule of thumb I usually go by is:
Optimizing within concept.

If that means going pure fighter or dipping into 8 different classes, then so be it.

I don't like it when players specifically construct their background in order to justify certain class dips and mechanical builds. I would rather have them start from a background and go from there.

That said I don't believe a good DM can be thwarted by any amount of player finagling to make their characters powerful. A good DM can construct appropriate challenges for any characters of various power levels, if they have the patience and cunning. Not saying I am one of them necessarily, I would rather players stick to kosher builds usually and not try to game the system so much.

I get tired of seeing complaints about players exploiting certain loopholes or purposefully making powerful builds...that is part of the game, and a DM is equally (actually more) capable of crafting enemies and other challenges to more than match any player's sneaky powergaming...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teraki View Post
A good rule of thumb I usually go by is:
Optimizing within concept.

If that means going pure fighter or dipping into 8 different classes, then so be it.
That's a very good rule of thumb except that it relies on trust. Trust is vital to any social recreational activity, but it is difficult to determine (As it is intent, and intent is hard to prove) whether you optimized within the concept or used the concept to justify the customization. As such and unfortunately, this is why I believe a universal restriction must be erected and keep the sanctity and the sanity of the machine intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerK View Post
I don't like it when players specifically construct their background in order to justify certain class dips and mechanical builds. I would rather have them start from a background and go from there.
Thank you. I am incapable of making myself sound inoffensive, even after I tried to write neutrality. So thank you for delivering for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerK View Post
That said I don't believe a good DM can be thwarted by any amount of player finagling to make their characters powerful. A good DM can construct appropriate challenges for any characters of various power levels, if they have the patience and cunning. Not saying I am one of them necessarily, I would rather players stick to kosher builds usually and not try to game the system so much.

I get tired of seeing complaints about players exploiting certain loopholes or purposefully making powerful builds...that is part of the game, and a DM is equally (actually more) capable of crafting enemies and other challenges to more than match any player's sneaky powergaming...
The problem with the DM reacting to powergaming is to tailor challenges against the entire party (as ideally they are one unit) to try to surgically disable the problem player without resorting to Rocks Fall. And if only one of them is powergaming, then the others will have a difficult time keeping up.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status       Advertise with us