Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[Storm Raven]

I did the math and noticed you had replied, and so didn't reply.

16th level nets you a rogue special ability, so the dipper has three.

True. So mark that down.

However, what I didn't get into was how useless some of the sundry abilties the "dipper" gets are for him. Wild empathy is capped at +2 (only two ranger levels), although he could get a synergy bonus for having 5 ranks in Knowledge: Nature. Track is mostly useless, since he only has three levels of classes with Survival as a class skill, which will make it difficult to raise the necessary skill levels to anything that would make the feat useful. Fast movement seems good, until you realize that it can be replicated by a moderately costed magic item. Rage is a once per day thing, and without the hit points and BAB to go toe to toe with the big guns, will likely be hazardous to the rogue's health. The martial weapon proficiencies are nice, but most of the weapons the rogue would want o use with two-weapon fighting are already available to him as a rogue. The armor proficiencies are useless, since most of his sundry class abiltiies rely on him not wearing it. Favored enemy is highly situational, and +2 is a tiny bonus at that point. When you pare down how much truly useful stuff there is among all the chaff, it turns out to be "not much".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that's not what anyone is claiming. Dipping hampers you right now by putting off abilities that you would otherwise get. It was ther "pro-dip" side that said "over 20 levels the loss doesn't matter much", not the "dipping is not a great strategy" side.

Ah, well I'm not on a particular side. I am going from what I think to be correct, and am willing to be swayed. I initially didn't believe that a reasonable percentage of the 1e players had problems with multiclassing. I accept that I was wrong -- I suspect that this is a group dynamic/DM thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-dip" either. Those who think that dipping can cause problems would, presumably, be the "anti-dip" side.

Dipping 1 level of fighter as a wizard costs you spell progression. Always.

This confuses me, though, because when we were discussing 1e multiclassing, it was apparently a non-issue.

I am also a bit confused by the idea you seem to be espousing that the cost over 20 levels does matter much, in light of your statements like "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal."

I have to admit, though, that to me (especially when the math is corrected), the dipper at 20th level is doing better than the non-dipper in all examples you've shown. Again, this may be a group dynamic/DM thing. The more diverse events in a a campaign world are, the more (IMHO) dipping is rewarded.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

This confuses me, though, because when we were discussing 1e multiclassing, it was apparently a non-issue.

It wasn't as much of an issue, and more than compensated for in 1e multiclassing. In 1e, losing the one level of spellcasting to multiclass meant getting many levels of fighter (for example). In 1e, losing the 1 level of caster level means getting 1 level of fighter.

Which is the better deal in 1e? Being a 5th level magic-user, or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic-user?

Which is the better deal in 3e? Being a 5th level wizard, or a 1st/4th level fighter/wizard?

See the difference?

I am also a bit confused by the idea you seem to be espousing that the cost over 20 levels does matter much, in light of your statements like "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal."

I have to admit, though, that to me (especially when the math is corrected), the dipper at 20th level is doing better than the non-dipper in all examples you've shown. Again, this may be a group dynamic/DM thing. The more diverse events in a a campaign world are, the more (IMHO) dipping is rewarded.[/i][/quote]

Really? You truly think that gaining a fighter feat, 3 hit points, and the ability to use martial weapons and armor is better than a wizard bonus feat, +1 caster level, and the ability to cast an extra 8th and 9th level spell per day? I think I'd rather be able to cast an extra meteor swarm and horrid wilting every day even without the other benefits being a 20th level wizard gives me over being a 1st level fighter/20th level wizard.

And as for the the rogue dipper, he does have a lot of abilities, but most of them are useless to him. He doesn't have the Survival skill to power track, his Wild Empathy is ineffective, the weapon and armor proficiencies he gains don't synergy with the Two-Weapon Fighting ability. What he gains is just not really worth more than what he gives up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It wasn't as much of an issue, and more than compensated for in 1e multiclassing. In 1e, losing the one level of spellcasting to multiclass meant getting many levels of fighter (for example). In 1e, losing the 1 level of caster level means getting 1 level of fighter.

Which is the better deal in 1e? Being a 5th level magic-user, or a 4th/4th level fighter/magic-user?

Which is the better deal in 3e? Being a 5th level wizard, or a 1st/4th level fighter/wizard?

See the difference?

Excepting, of course, that our 4th/4th ftr/m-u still had the hit points of a 4th level character. If the fighter averages 5.5 hp per level, a 5th level fighter has 5.5 x 5 = 27.5, say 27 hp. The f/m-u has an average of {(2.5 x 4) + (5.5 x 4)}/2 = {10 + 22}/2 = 32/4 = 16 hit points. The f/m-u, if he fights at all, has a much lower life expectancy. And, if he doesn't fight, he has gained 4 hp at the cost of a spell level (lvl 5 m-u averages 2.5 x 5 = 12.5, say 12 hp).

No, sorry. This doesn't seem to be a clear advantage to me.

Really? You truly think that gaining a fighter feat, 3 hit points, and the ability to use martial weapons and armor is better than a wizard bonus feat, +1 caster level, and the ability to cast an extra 8th and 9th level spell per day? I think I'd rather be able to cast an extra meteor swarm and horrid wilting every day even without the other benefits being a 20th level wizard gives me over being a 1st level fighter/20th level wizard.

Especially when you add in that +2 bonus to Fort over a loss of +1 to Will, yes. Those proficiencies represent how many feats? You can use them how many times a day?

Or else, what did you mean by "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal." ?

RC

 

[Storm Raven]

Especially when you add in that +2 bonus to Fort over a loss of +1 to Will, yes. Those proficiencies represent how many feats? You can use them how many times a day?

And? With a +10 BAB, the extra weapon proficiencies are trivial. His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes. The armor proficiencies are not particularly useful, since he can't cast spells in armor without suffering ASF chances. The question, when evaluating character power, isn't how much stuff you have written on your character sheet. It is "how useful is the stuff you have". The 20th level wizard's 1st level spells are more valuable to him than all of the fighter weapon and armor proficiencies would be combined.

Or else, what did you mean by "Once again, when you actually evaluate what the "dipper" gets, it works out to pretty much a net wash." and "Doesn't look at all obvious who got the better deal." ?

I mean, it works out to a net wash in most cases, or the single class character has the better end of the deal. The 20th level wizard's advantages are at least as valuable as the benefits gained by taking 1 level of fighter instead of staying with the wizard class.

 

[Storm Raven]

Excepting, of course, that our 4th/4th ftr/m-u still had the hit points of a 4th level character. If the fighter averages 5.5 hp per level, a 5th level fighter has 5.5 x 5 = 27.5, say 27 hp. The f/m-u has an average of {(2.5 x 4) + (5.5 x 4)}/2 = {10 + 22}/2 = 32/4 = 16 hit points. The f/m-u, if he fights at all, has a much lower life expectancy. And, if he doesn't fight, he has gained 4 hp at the cost of a spell level (lvl 5 m-u averages 2.5 x 5 = 12.5, say 12 hp).

He also gains the ability to use the fighter attack matrix, fighter weapon and armor proficiencies with no penalty (remember, in 1e, a fighter/magic-user could cast spells in armor, unlike in 3e, where he still suffers ASF chances). He gets to save as the better of either class, whicher save table is better at the time. Compared to the fighter, he has four levels of magic-user. Compared to the magic-user, he has all the advantages of a fighter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And? With a +10 BAB, the extra weapon proficiencies are trivial.

What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play. For example, in an "as is" world, the statement "His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes" is meaningless. In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this.

The question, when evaluating character power, isn't how much stuff you have written on your character sheet. It is "how useful is the stuff you have".

I agree. And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct. If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct. If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct.

This is similar, in fact, to the cavalier argument re: 1e. The cavalier has a few things going for it, but deep in the dungeons below Castle Greyhawk some of his advantages might be lethal to him.

It seems, in fact, to me that this discussion highlights that the campaign assumptions that 1e works best for and the campaign assumptions 3e works best for are very, very different.


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play. For example, in an "as is" world, the statement "His melee attacks with them would be so much wasted effort against appropriate level foes" is meaningless.

Completely untrue. Foes who are an appropriate level challenege him, and the question of his power is salient. Foes who are below that appropriate level are nuisances at best, and mostly completely irrelevant. For a 20th level wizard character (for example) a CR 10 foe is totally outclassed in such a way that having the ability to fight one with a sword is completley meaningless. The foe is no challenge at all, no more than killing a mouse would be to you, so whether he has some other way of dealing with it or not is a question of no import.

In many games, the ability to strap on armor might be more important than the ASF chance.....indeed, you might be able to also dip into a prestige class to mitigate this.

And dipping into the prestige class results in its own drawbacks - most of the ones that mitigate ASF do not have full spell progression, don't have bonus feats, and so on, so you give up benefits to get the benefits of the prestige class. But that isn't the question you asked. You asked about the 1 level of fighter dip. resorting to saying "you could take levels in yet another class that will cost you even more to offset the problems of the dip seems to me to prove my point. The dip isn't a problem.

I agree. And, if you assume that you'll be having four encounters per day, and that those encounters will be balanced in a particular way, you might be correct.

I'm not, and yet I am still correct.

If you assume that you are automatically going to survive until 20th level, or that any character lost is going to be replaced with a like level character, you may be correct.

I'm not. if you go back and read the thread, you will find that I said that dipping makes you less effective at lower levels. That dipping delays your progression to higher level abilities. It was the "dipping is the way to ULTIMATE POWER" guys who said "it doesn't matter over 20 levels". Dipping is likely to hamper your power at the moment of dipping, and is generally, at best a power neutral choice.

If you assume that you are going to have particular types of encounters, and that you can therefore optimize for those types of encounters (i.e., that being a specialist is always better than being a generalist) you may be correct.

Being a specialist may or may not be "better" than being a generalist. However, being a generalist doesn't get you any additional benefit in most cases int he 3e system, since your "generalized" abilities often don't match up to where they need to be for the foes you face. And when they do, the foes are trivial ones, who the specialist can still deal with at least as well or better than you can.

 

[Raven Crowking]

He also gains the ability to use the fighter attack matrix, fighter weapon and armor proficiencies with no penalty (remember, in 1e, a fighter/magic-user could cast spells in armor, unlike in 3e, where he still suffers ASF chances). He gets to save as the better of either class, whicher save table is better at the time. Compared to the fighter, he has four levels of magic-user. Compared to the magic-user, he has all the advantages of a fighter.

The rules don't actually say he can cast spells in armor; they say that he can wear armor and that he can cast spells. If someone has the Dragon Compilation, and could look up the Sage Advice reference, that would be handy.

In any event, even if you ruled that a f/mu could cast spells in armor, on an encounter-by-encounter basis, you'd get either a better defended (but less potent) spellcaster or a weak fighter. In 1e, when you got hit in combat while casting you didn't make a Concentration check -- you lost your spell. Casting spells while engaged in melee was a suicidal option.

Of course, again, I concede that if you played in a far less challenging campaign model than was true IME these considerations might never have come up....much the way that a less challenging 3e environment can remove the benefits of level dipping.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Completely untrue.

If you are merely trying to say that level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER, then I agree with you 100%.

Otherwise, I find your arguments less than convincing.


RC