Gaming Discussion

For all things gaming related.


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

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Dog View Post
So, basically, the only cited reasons for dipping and etc. boil down to:
  • "<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!"
d20 Modern is a bit more in line with this since the base classes only have 10 levels. Multi-classing is inevitable unless you are playing an e6 variant or something. Personally I prefer AD&D 1e/2e style multiclassing where BABs and saves don't stack. To emulate that in 3.5, you could gestalt the extra classes (ie Fighter 4/Mage 2/Rogue 1 is the BAB and saves of the highest class, and XP cost might not stack either). Its up to he GM though as to what is acceptable. I kind of like Michael's Rule of Three he used in his Planescape game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krimson View Post
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.
That amusing anecdote aside, the problem I have with this whole discussion is this weird assumption that dipping multiple classes somehow has to be justified with a convoluted background that allows the character to study the aspects from each of those classes as an individual construct.

Just because I call my character a "monk" in-character doesn't mean that his class is actually a monk. If I decide to go Barbarian1/Monk2/Avenger Druid14/Fist of the Forest3, that doesn't make my character any less a "ranger" or whatever the hell I want to call him, and he can just as easily be "a hobo that learned to live in the forest. The End," as he could have a long, convoluted story about how he received all of his abilities from each class, and they would both be equally valid. In-character identification is completely different from the metaconstruct of classes, and should be treated as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfeld View Post
That amusing anecdote aside, the problem I have with this whole discussion is this weird assumption that dipping multiple classes somehow has to be justified with a convoluted background that allows the character to study the aspects from each of those classes as an individual construct.

Just because I call my character a "monk" in-character doesn't mean that his class is actually a monk. If I decide to go Barbarian1/Monk2/Avenger Druid14/Fist of the Forest3, that doesn't make my character any less a "ranger" or whatever the hell I want to call him. In-character identification is completely different from the metaconstruct of classes, and should be treated as such.
I think you have a point Greyfeld. Also, look at the vast majority of WotC-published NPC characters, all the way from biggies like Elminster down to generic ones like the example Geometer from Complete Arcane. Many of those NPC characters have dips or just a couple levels in various classes. IIRC (can't remember where I read his stats), Elminster was something of a mutt for a while, but it reflected his development as a character...

Oh god... I now want to play that character xD

Frinalin, the elven forest hobo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TanaNari View Post
I have cletus the redneck bard.
Omg omg... please tell me he plays the jug xD

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Dog View Post
So, basically, the only cited reasons for dipping and etc. boil down to:
  • "I want more pluses!" Nothing wrong with having more tools in your tool box, when your in a game style that requires a feat to use two weapons better or fire arrows faster, instead of fluff
  • "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!" Yes I should, deal with it
  • "This handbook on the Internet said this is the best thing to do to get more pluses!" Listening to your elders is a crucial skill in life
  • "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> I want to rp a butcher, does that mean I have to stay as a artist my entire 20 levels?
  • "Because I'm a rebel and won't be kept down by the Man!" Yep
  • "<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!" If a PRC has insane needs to be met to get into it, it does prove the point, that D&D is about creating your character how you see fit, this is not a MMORPG that you take one class for 80 levels, this is ABOUT YOU BEING WHAT YOU WANT TO BE .
  • 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.
Bolded my responces

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfeld View Post
Omg omg... please tell me he plays the jug xD
Banjo, actually. Other highlights include his deep fryer (masterwork cooking utensils), stuffed jackelope, summon dire squirrel (it's like a badger, but with a big fluffy tail) and a violin that he plays very very wrongly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyfeld View Post
Omg omg... please tell me he plays the jug xD

I have made 4 radical characters compared to what is normal around here for d&d

A treant that took monk levels for combat , A Gelentinous cube that took swashbuckling levels, An awaked cat that is a beguiler*aka* puss n boots, anything not a human for that god damn extra feat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic Dog View Post
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.
You know what's funny? None of these have actually been quoted as reasons by anyone but opponents of dipping. Silverwolf has made a wonderful answer of why those are actually good reasons, but straw men may make for good archery practice, but they have no place in a serious discussion.

Also, nobody mentioned 'cheesing out' their character, only dipping in classes. Please make at least a token effort to stay on topic.


Also, since we're gatherings of answers, so far the "contra" seems to have,
"It's cheesy", which is untrue simply because most builds with dips are woefully underpowered as compared to the dipless druid 20, and "I just feel it insults the game", which is silly because it's a game. It can't be insulted. Just like you couldn't insult, say, thin air.





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