Notices


Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


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

 
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.

........
Fochlucan Lyrist from Comp Adv. Just in case anyone was wanting to check that out of curiosity like I did and ended up with a "lol class does not exist" when they entered "Fochuan Lyrist" (with or without quotes) into their local friendly search engine.

I hate to be the asshole here

but D&D is crunch based not fluff based

Classes can be refluffed all day long, if your storyline does not have dragons in it, then make up some other reason , do not just ban DragonFire Adepts. Same thing goes with multi classing. That one dip for trapfinding is just fine for a cleric of some thief god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
If you can represent your concept without dipping, why butcher four classes and rob them of their features?
I can ask you the same question, with a similar, unnecessarily emotionally loaded choice of words. Why should I feel trapped in a class and chained to drudge it out to the end, and have their class features, or lack thereof, forced on me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
And if it is not necessary, then you're dipping for a mechanical advantage. Mechanical advantage itself is no issue, but...
That's just not true. It's not necessary for you to eat tasty food as long as you get the bare minimum of required nutrition, but you'll prefer a good meal. It's not necessary for you to wear comfortable or appealing clothing as long as they provide you enough protection from the elements to survive, but you'd still rather not wear a burlap sack.
The only things that are necessary are food, breath, and shelter. The rest is optional, including any and all qualities of your character build, and there's a plethora of reasons other than wanting mechanical power. I could like the name or mechanic of a certain set of powers. I may find the combination of two powers to be fun to play. I may, and I feel this is the most common option, feel that while it's not absolutely necessary, a certain mechanical choice brings out some detail of my character's history more.
And finally, yes, I might do it for the mechanical advantage. But as you said, it's not issue. And thus,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
...throwing away an entire class after dipping on it seems distasteful.
...we return to the crux of my original question, which you've still to answer.
Why is a dip distasteful? What is the issue? Who's worse off?
I highly doubt not taking a class to its end will hurt the game's feelings. I refuse to believe in a tabletop game's feeling in general until it starts showing creepy green rhymes and teleports jungle monsters into my attic... and come to think of it, I'm going to also need to have Robin Williams playing it with me. Just because he seems like an awesome guy,


Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
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?
I like picking and choosing what I'm doing and having things just the way I like. Or because I just wanna. Or because I like the names of the abilities, or for any other reason. But, you've still not said, why not Fighter 2/Warblade 5/Swordsage 1/Avenging Executioner 2?

@secutor

Some classes just suck, and some are front loaded with abilities, ALA fighter, two levels for those feats, or two levels for marshal for those two auras. Not all folks in real life are career job folks, somemove around alot in many different fields, how would you portray that in d&d?

I WOULD love to play a late game dragon shaman, but it just falls off the map late game, while other classes like bards excel. You cannot measure a fighter against a wizard and ask the player, why didn't you go full 20.


@Ikul

calm down

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverwolfer View Post
@Ikul

calm down
I'm entirely calm. I don't even know why you'd think otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
If you can represent your concept without dipping, why butcher four classes and rob them of their features?
Because it's a better representation.

Sure, I could run Fighter 10 to represent a member of the king's personal guard. But Fighter 2/Crusader 8 would be a better representation, allowing me to build a character that is a great protector, with enough extra feats to solidify the role I've chosen for my character.

I could create a berzerk, dual-knife pit fighter using Barbarian or Rogue. Or, I could dip 1 level of Barbarian for Pounce, go 2 levels in Ranger for free dual wielding and a not-suck skill list and skill points, then jump into Swordsage or Warblade for Tiger Claw maneuvers to flesh out his combat style.

It's about realizing that, sometimes, just going straight into a single class doesn't actually give you the type of character you want. Being a "Master swordsman" or a "Commander of the Legions" loses merit when your mechanical build doesn't actually fit that theme. And sometimes, in order to meet your theme halfway, you have to be willing to dip a couple different classes to do it.

I worked at an ice cream shop for a few months years ago. So at best I have a level of ice cream slinging. Not really relevant but in my job in the bakery, I use an ice cream scoops to fill the pastry bags when I need to ice something. That dip in ice cream slinging does in fact make my job easier.

So, basically, the only cited reasons for dipping and etc. boil down to:
  • "I want more pluses!"
  • "The Fighter isn't a good class, ergo, no class is a good class and I should be able to compensate for the Fighter's suckitude on my wholly unrelated character!"
  • "This handbook on the Internet said this is the best thing to do to get more pluses!"
  • "I'm actually a roleplayer, and I need to cheese out my character in order to play this role! If you think otherwise, it's actually you who are ROLLplayer!!" <hair toss>
  • "Because I'm a rebel and won't be kept down by the Man!"
  • "<Random multiprogression prestige class> requires abilities from multiple classes, ergo, all dipping is not only acceptable but required and D&D is all about multiclassing, OMG! So what if all the base classes go from 1-20, that's not proof of anything, D&D is 100% multiclassing!"
  • Edit: "Oh, I'm actually only cheesing out because I like the name of the ability."

Pretty much as expected. A bit imflammatory, maybe, but fairly accurate nonetheless after reading through all this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
disrespect to the class is bad taste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
sanctity [...] of the machine
And we've stumbled on the root of the disagreement.
You hold the mechanics in combination with their published fluff as somehow sacred. As a product of that, you beleive that using them in any way other than the manner you perceive as being intended is 'disrespectful' to this holy thing.

Am I getting that more-or-less right?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Secutor View Post
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.
And yet, for all the items of which you complain, the most iconic instance of this problem has gone entirely without comment from you (that being the fighter or monk in a party with a single-classed wizard, cleric, or druid). If you can call Druid20 'powergaming', anyway.
In fact, for all of your objections and insinuations as to the 'overpowered-ness' of excessive multi-classing, you've yet to demonstrate that the resultant builds at all tend to be more powerful than the single-classed primary casters that your preferred limits would (I believe) inevitably encourage.

Yeah I don't think any build can really beat Druid20 or Wizard20 even. Especially with access to things like Spell Compendium etc.





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