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

[VirgilCaine]

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.

If paladin AND Cavalier abilities can't help the Cavalier fighting against the most dangerous foe the party is fighting, the party will survive because of the Cavalier's heroic death warning them to run the hell away. A true heroes end.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Which ones? The ones where I pointed out that CR 10 foes are a trivial issue for 20th level characters? or the ones where I showed that a 20th level wizard is better off on the whole than a 19th level wizard/1st level fighter?

Simply saying "I don't like your arguments" as you have, is less than persuasive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If paladin AND Cavalier abilities can't help the Cavalier fighting against the most dangerous foe the party is fighting, the party will survive because of the Cavalier's heroic death warning them to run the hell away. A true heroes end.

True. I think that, often enough, people who played these classes in 1e were looking for a character whose story (including that heroic death scene) would be cool. I know that, when I played a paladin, I was often willing to die heroically so that the party (or village, or innocent NPCs) could survive. It was the funnest thing about the class, IMHO.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Actually, they do. look up the multiclassing rules in the 1e PHB, they explicitly say that the only limitation on wearing armor is thieving abilities.

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.

So you stayed out of melee and cast spells, or you joined in and fought in melee. Or you used a wand (like standard wizards were recommended to do in combat), or any number of other things. You still have yet to show how losing a signle level of fighter for four levels of magic-user isn't horrendously overpowered.

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.

Please. The "your campaigns aren't as tough as mine" silliness is petty and childish at best. The reason for using the various 1e rules-exploits was tougher campaigns, a wimper level of opposition would have made the drive to find the loopholes less pressing. The level dipping benefits you tout for 3e are entirely illusory, and have been thoroughly debunked at this point. The "dipping" wizard ends up less powerful than his single classed companion (not a lot, but certainly not as well off). "Dipping" is almost always a counterproductive strategy, especially for a caster class.

 

[molonel]

"Dipping" is almost always a counterproductive strategy, especially for a caster class.

Multiclassing for a spellcasting class without a 1 per level casting progression is almost always a loss.

I just played a rogue up through 25th level. I multiclassed lightly, because the strengths of rogues are their skill points and their Sneak Attack progression. I didn't even LOOK at any prestige classes with less than six skill points per level.

Fighter and melee types suffer the least, but stacking a lot of them on top of each other leaves your saves tanked. A Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Barbarian 2 has a base Will save of +0.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Which ones? The ones where I claimed that CR 10 foes are a trivial issue for 20th level characters? or the ones where I said that a 20th level wizard is better off on the whole than a 19th level wizard/1st level fighter?

Fixed that for ya.

An inability to make a challenging encounter for a 20th level character with CR 10 foes seems more a failure of imagination than a failure of rules IMHO.

Seriously, though, you seem to be thinking of a campaign model that is a lot less challenging than the one I use. Which is fine. To each his own pudding. I doubt very much that you would enjoy the sort of game that I do.

When you die in my game, you don't get to come back at APL. And, if you're not careful, you may well die. Raise dead isn't easy to come by. You aren't guaranteed average wealth by level -- you get what you find, what you make, and what you earn. I dish out 1/2 normal XP. The 1-level dip, when used, is used before 5th level (generally) because there is no guarantee that you'll be making it to 20th, and because it can help you survive to 6th. Rust monsters are more than a one-trick pony, and so is everything else....which means that creatures can, and will, stack the odds in their favor.

The one thing that you have convinced me of is that, in the years I have been playing this game (in various editions since 1979, in 7 states [2e in California and Rhode Island] and 2 countries [US and Canada]) I have been extraordinary lucky in encountering literally hundreds of players with whom, regardless of edition, everything clicked. I've run games with as few as 1 player and as many as (about) 15 using 1e with no problems. With 3e, I've run games for as few as 1 player and as many as 9. Again, no problems.

I think you mistake "the system" for the campaign style you prefer, or for the default campaign style outlined in 3e. The system is more hearty than that. Campaign assumptions vastly affect what is, or is not, powerful in a given game.

You respond to the notion that your assumptions might not be universal with "Completely untrue." This isn't unconvincing merely because "I don't like your arguments" but because it isn't an argument at all....no matter how many ways you reword it in a single paragraph.

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.​

The above is simply saying the same thing over and over again. This to the statement "What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play". You ignore that Challenge Rating in and of itself is an imperfect method of determining what opponent would challenge a party of four PCs with a set standard of wealth used in a fairly narrow way assuming that the encounter was a relatively straightforward combat encounter wherein each character can bring all of his abilities to bear.

As an obvious example, if a game world contained antimagic zones ala the Forgotten Realms, then the ability to cast spells within those zones is meaningless and the one-level dip is critical.....especially if the party otherwise contains no heavy fighter types.

When you are right (weapon specialization was allowed to all fighters and rangers in UA, multi-classing must have caused a fair percentage of players problems, level dipping is not the way to ULTIMATE POWER) I'll be happy to say so. However, simply repeating your stated opinions as though they were facts ad infinitum ad nauseum isn't convincing.

(I've done the same, of course, but I am sure no one is convinced by that either. )

So, if you want to convince me, then you will need a better line of argument. If you don't want to convince me, then you don't need anything.....after all, I certainly don't care if you personally find my statements "less than persuasive". I am responding to what you write for my own benefit, and for the (dubious) benefit of others, lest they come to the erroneous conclusion that since some statements remain unchallenged they must be true, and their own personal experiences therefore somehow false.

In any event, it is a frequent internet argument technique to make a claim of a single case, then attempt to prove that single case untrue, thus trying to demonstrate that the larger case is untrue. That is simply fallicious reasoning. Unless the statement being made is "At 20th level, all single dips show a clear benefit"....which, in my case at least, it is not.

My position can be summed up as:

"One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival now with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost." and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".

Caveat to the 2nd point: "This is a logical extension of more options, and given that more options are a good thing, the balance problems are well within tolerance under the eye of a vigilant DM and/or gaming group."

Clear enough?


RC

 

[Storm Raven]

An inability to make a challenging encounter for a 20th level character with CR 10 foes seems more a failure of imagination than a failure of rules IMHO.

Please. Show me a CR 10 foe that is anything other than a trivial challenge for a 20th level wizard.

Seriously, though, you seem to be thinking of a campaign model that is a lot less challenging than the one I use. Which is fine. To each his own pudding. I doubt very much that you would enjoy the sort of game that I do.

There you go with the petty and childish claims again.

When you die in my game, you don't get to come back at APL. And, if you're not careful, you may well die. Raise dead isn't easy to come by. You aren't guaranteed average wealth by level -- you get what you find, what you make, and what you earn. I dish out 1/2 normal XP. The 1-level dip, when used, is used before 5th level (generally) because there is no guarantee that you'll be making it to 20th, and because it can help you survive to 6th. Rust monsters are more than a one-trick pony, and so is everything else....which means that creatures can, and will, stack the odds in their favor.

And? It may surprise you that I have DMed and played in campaigns using some, or all of the modifications you are talking about. And in none of them was "dipping" anything that really helped the PCs.

I think you mistake "the system" for the campaign style you prefer, or for the default campaign style outlined in 3e. The system is more hearty than that. Campaign assumptions vastly affect what is, or is not, powerful in a given game.

You seem to think that you are the only one here who has made changes to the baseline. I believe you are sadly mistaken. And hopelessly arrogant on that score.

You respond to the notion that your assumptions might not be universal with "Completely untrue." This isn't unconvincing merely because "I don't like your arguments" but because it isn't an argument at all....no matter how many ways you reword it in a single paragraph.

I didn't assert that the assumptions might not be universally true. I asserted that it was completely untrue that making the sorts of changes you are talking about have any impact on this sort of character balance. The fact that you, for some reason, ignored the actual argument and instead chose to erect some sort of strawman in your mind (which you didn't actually try to argue against, but rather stated "I don't believe you") isn't a failing on my end of the stick. This might have been easy to figure out, had you actually explained your reasoning in the first place - because then your straw man would have been exposed right away.

The above is simply saying the same thing over and over again. This to the statement "What is, and what is not, trivial is very much determined by campaign play". You ignore that Challenge Rating in and of itself is an imperfect method of determining what opponent would challenge a party of four PCs with a set standard of wealth used in a fairly narrow way assuming that the encounter was a relatively straightforward combat encounter wherein each character can bring all of his abilities to bear.

Give a CR 10 challenge that would be more than trivial to a 20th level wizard. Under any assumptions.

As an obvious example, if a game world contained antimagic zones ala the Forgotten Realms, then the ability to cast spells within those zones is meaningless and the one-level dip is critical.....especially if the party otherwise contains no heavy fighter types.

Please. Even with antimagic zones, the wizard remains better off staying a wizard than trying to wade into battle with a longsword, +10 BAB, and 53 hit points at 20th level. And you are not talking about a CR 10 challenege then either, you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so.

"One or more level dips, when taken, can provide an immediate benefit that aids a character in survival now with little or no (or shall I say, debateable?) long-term cost."

And that statement has been shown, repeatedly, to be completely untrue. The cost is paid right now, you don't advance in your "primary" class, and often get benefits that are less useful than those you would get by going up a level in your primary class. The fact that you don't realize this makes me think that your claims about how hard campaigns are isn't actually a measure of how hard the campaigns are, but something else.

and "Given that it is easier to balance three things than fifty-three things, the sheer number of options in 3e make unbalanced combinations more probable to exist (including race, class, template, feats, skills, spells, and equipment); in fact, greatly unbalanced combos do exist, both in greater number and with greater potential balance problems than in 1e".

Once again, completely untrue. In 1e, there were only a handful of balance problems in the rules, but they were clearly better than the alternatives, to the point where characters who did not take those options were significantly hampered by comparison. By contrast, the only thing you have shown with your "fighter dip" argument is that the 20th level wizard is better off.

 

[Shadeydm]

So what does all this mean to the original question?

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

Dictate no, reward yes, are people generally encouraged by rewards yes, so by extension a certain style of play is encouraged but not dictated.

 

[Storm Raven]

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

No.

Dictate no, reward yes, are people generally encouraged by rewards yes, so by extension a certain style of play is encouraged but not dictated.

Reward? If you are talking about rewarding level dipping? No.

 

[molonel]

Please. Even with antimagic zones, the wizard remains better off staying a wizard than trying to wade into battle with a longsword, +10 BAB, and 53 hit points at 20th level. And you are not talking about a CR 10 challenege then either, you have made the fundamental mistake of changing the nature of the challenge without realizing you have done so.

Oh my God. A 20th level wizard with no operable magic items in an antimagic zone is a 20th level commoner. Nothing more, nothing less. Taking one level of fighter is not only NOT a no-brainer. It's completely irrelevant. Spellcasters are among the least likely to multiclass in 3rd Edition games with classes that don't give them caster level progression.