Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


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

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
Give me a character that a cleric dip, a tattooed monk dip, a spellsword or a warblade dip is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the theme.
A religious order that follows Kord and protects the surrounding lands accepts children/teenagers and begins training them in both scripture and matrial prowess (cleric dip). They start training so young so the warriors they produce are the best possible warriors.

As the students go through their studies and practises they are tested and for every pass they recieve a magical tattoo that enhances their abilities further. (Tattooed monk dip).

Upon graduating their final test they move into the higher echelon and begin to learn a wide variety of mystical, martial, and magical which will give them an advantage on the battlefield. (Spellsword or Warblade dip)

So ya basically the D&D version of a spartan II. I personally would not play this character but you as for a theme and here it is.

Quote:
Give me a character that a cleric dip, a tattooed monk dip, a spellsword or a warblade dip is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the theme.
Fistbeard Beardfist!

Well, that's not exactly what you requested, but the dip in Monk from Ranger helps get into various prestige classes which enhance the character concept a great deal, otherwise he would really not be able to engage in unarmed combat while also having lots of Rangery skills.

Quote:
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 restricted and keep the sanctity and the sanity of the machine intact.
If you do not trust the other people at your gaming table, why are you gaming with them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
Give me a character that a cleric dip, a tattooed monk dip, a spellsword or a warblade dip is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the theme.
Here's the million dollar question: why would it have to be ABSOLUTELY necessary? If can provide you with a character background whose theme is as well represented by Fighter 10 as Fighter 2/Warblade 5/Swordsage 1/Avenging Executioner 2. Assume an ideal situation, a thought experiment, where both options are ideally equally suited.
What makes the former superior?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
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.
If build and concept are both good, why should it matter which came first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by twen5 View Post
A religious order that follows Kord and protects the surrounding lands accepts children/teenagers and begins training them in both scripture and matrial prowess (cleric dip). They start training so young so the warriors they produce are the best possible warriors.

As the students go through their studies and practises they are tested and for every pass they recieve a magical tattoo that enhances their abilities further. (Tattooed monk dip).

Upon graduating their final test they move into the higher echelon and begin to learn a wide variety of mystical, martial, and magical which will give them an advantage on the battlefield. (Spellsword or Warblade dip)

So ya basically the D&D version of a spartan II. I personally would not play this character but you as for a theme and here it is.
That's very good, except why are those classes mere dips and not progressed straight on? Especially the Monk, Warblade and Spellsword.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
Here's the million dollar question: why would it have to be ABSOLUTELY necessary? If can provide you with a character background whose theme is as well represented by Fighter 10 as Fighter 2/Warblade 5/Swordsage 1/Avenging Executioner 2. Assume an ideal situation, a thought experiment, where both options are ideally equally suited.
What makes the former superior?
Is three domains "character background" to you?

And I don't even know what that Fighter 2/Warblade 5/Swordsage 1/Avenging Executioner 2 is supposed to do. Context please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Fistbeard Beardfist!

Well, that's not exactly what you requested, but the dip in Monk from Ranger helps get into various prestige classes which enhance the character concept a great deal, otherwise he would really not be able to engage in unarmed combat while also having lots of Rangery skills.
If you do not trust the other people at your gaming table, why are you gaming with them?
That's understandable but why is stonewarden and Fist of the Forest necessary though?

And I *do* trust my gaming table, it's just we must always make a precautionary measure and have a clear definition of terms before things start to get wonky. To keep things lawful and consistent.

Don't forget there are other ways to crazy optimize other than multiclassing/dipping...when I feel like optimizing, more often than not I just stick with one class and maybe 1 or 2 prestige classes at high levels, but optimize using alternate class features, feats and skill tricks...that's the even MORE sneaky way of optimizing as it is much less obviously visible until play and suddenly you realize your swashbuckler player is breaking all your encounters with Combat Reflexes/Double Hit/High Sword Low Axe combo...*facepalm*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
Is three domains "character background" to you?
No. I did not say it was. Please do not pretend I said things when I manifestly did not say them, it's rude and annoys me to no end.
If you would care to go back and actually read what you just quoted, I said I have a character background which is represented by that build. As in, here's my concept, with background and all, and the abilities this character would have as a result of his life so far can be modelled mechanically by taking this series of classes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
And I don't even know what that Fighter 2/Warblade 5/Swordsage 1/Avenging Executioner 2 is supposed to do. Context please.
Context: random combination of classes I just pulled out of the air. but I see you've elected to entirely ignore the actual question, so I'll repeat it: why would that build (with its 3 dips), if it's exactly as close-fitting to a non-specified character concept as Fighter 10 (with no dips), be deemed inferior? Can you provide one reason?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
That's very good, except why are those classes mere dips and not progressed straight on? Especially the Monk, Warblade and Spellsword.
Becaused you asked for a theme that needed all of these. Persoally, following the same theme, I would have just made a crusader and make the tattoo stuff fluff, having no mechanical impact.

If there is need for a build break down cleric 4/tattoo monk 3/wizard 3/spellsword 10 or cleric 4/tattoo monk 3/warblade 13

Note: wizard is there because you need to cast 2nd level spells to be a spellsword

Let the record show clear that I think this would be a stupid build for one to do just for the sake of background and roleplay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
No. I did not say it was. Please do not pretend I said things when I manifestly did not say them, it's rude and annoys me to no end.
If you would care to go back and actually read what you just quoted, I said I have a character background which is represented by that build. As in, here's my concept, with background and all, and the abilities this character would have as a result of his life so far can be modelled mechanically by taking this series of classes.



Context: random combination of classes I just pulled out of the air. but I see you've elected to entirely ignore the actual question, so I'll repeat it: why would that build (with its 3 dips), if it's exactly as close-fitting to a non-specified character concept as Fighter 10 (with no dips), be deemed inferior? Can you provide one reason?
If you can represent your concept without dipping, why butcher four classes and rob them of their features? And if it is not necessary, then you're dipping for a mechanical advantage. Mechanical advantage itself is no issue, but throwing away an entire class after dipping on it seems distasteful.

So why not Warblade8 / Avenging Executioner 2 with Martial Study? If a simplier build can replicate your complex one, what incentive or reason do you have to pick the more complex one if not for optimization?

And the cleric comment was absolutely related. Because it's an example of a dip that can easily be fluffed as "essentially character background" and "therefore I must represent it in crunch."
Quote:
Originally Posted by twen5 View Post
Becaused you asked for a theme that needed all of these. Persoally, following the same theme, I would have just made a crusader and make the tattoo stuff fluff, having no mechanical impact.

If there is need for a build break down cleric 4/tattoo monk 3/wizard 3/spellsword 10 or cleric 4/tattoo monk 3/warblade 13

Note: wizard is there because you need to cast 2nd level spells to be a spellsword

Let the record show clear that I think this would be a stupid build for one to do just for the sake of background and roleplay.
Yes, a crusader can perfectly replicate the concept with little trouble. Thank you agreeing that those dips are not necessary.

Here's a concept that you need to dip for: A Fochuan Lyrist.

You cannot qualify for that PrC without dipping.

@Secutor: Why are you treating classes like they're beings? They're really nothing more than words on a piece of paper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeman830 View Post
Here's a concept that you need to dip for: A Fochuan Lyrist.

You cannot qualify for that PrC without dipping.

@Secutor: Why are you treating classes like they're beings? They're really nothing more than words on a piece of paper.
As long as the Fochuan Lyrist is the main focus, it's generally fine. Using a ring of evasion to qualify for it isn't though.

And because the machine is to be treated with dignity, Imperial. Yes, DnD is nothing more than words on a piece of paper. But at least it isn't freeform.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status