Life without Discipline

[Hunter548]

Gandalf wasn't a wizard, he was a fighter/paladin with a lot of racial spells from being an angel.

[Lorkas]

I think this is a bit of an unfortunate attitude to have, even if it is mechanically indisputable.

I've always wondered why people thought like this. Not even Elminster's a pure wizard, you know?

I think it's just a reaction to what seems reasonable. It seems reasonable that someone who dedicated their lives purely to druidism would have a more solid grasp on druidic magic than someone who dedicated some of their time to learning kung fu as well, for example.

It doesn't need to be true that every pure class is stronger overall than a multiclass character who uses the class to pick up a few features that are important for their build, but it would be nice if there was some tangible benefit to that kind of pure focus.

Wanting some kind of capstone ability or perk for really focusing on a class is not the same as being anti-multiclass or anything like that. It can be fun to come up with new and interesting combinations of class skills, but it can also be fun to just do one thing and do it really well.

It would be cool to be able to say to yourself "Okay yea, I don't have discipline, but I got ____ instead". Right now the outright answer just seems to be that you're strictly worse if you don't multiclass--a 30 druid is worse overall than a 27 druid / 3 monk, but isn't even any better at being a druid in exchange.

[Red Sunset]

I think Halaster Blackcloak, Szass Tam, and Larloch are all just wizard epic wizard and wizard with archmage prestige class though.

[susitsu]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

[Wytchee]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

Arelith is based on a game that is based off of DnD. Arelith is not DnD.

Some people in this thread seem to think I want pure-classes to be more powerful than multiclasses. Please reread my posts if you think that.

I don't understand what your argument is, anyway. I'm not advocating for taking away your ability to multiclass.

[susitsu]

It's actually more of a suggestion, seeing as I love Pathfinder.

[MissEvelyn]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

Actually that is so far from the truth. 5th Edition, the lastest D&D mostly favors pure classing. But at the same time, you don't get penalized for multi-classing.

Pathfinder is for people who love to play the numbers vs playing the character. For example, there are feats and options you *can't* afford not to take. Does this sound familiar? (I'm looking at UMD and Discipline on Arelith).
Now, there's nothing wrong with min-maxing (or is there? ), but it does suck that a character feels almost useless in combat unless they dip. The motivation on a Roleplay server should never be that you're compelled to play something just because it's too good not to. That's basically Pathfinder in a nutshell. That shouldn't be Arelith.

I've been told by a friend that the first versions of D&D were all about pure-classing. AD&D did a great job as a well of it. It was only until 3rd and 3.5 were introduced that multi-classing almost became a must. PF hit the nail on that coffin when they introduced a bazillion numbers, feats, mechanics, etc.

Some people in this thread seem to think I want pure-classes to be more powerful than multiclasses.

I do, though.

Also, everything Lorkas said +1

[Dr_Hazard89]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

Actually that is so far from the truth. 5th Edition, the lastest D&D mostly favors pure classing. But at the same time, you don't get penalized for multi-classing.

Pathfinder is for people who love to play the numbers vs playing the character. For example, there are feats and options you *can't* afford not to take. Does this sound familiar? (I'm looking at UMD and Discipline on Arelith).
Now, there's nothing wrong with min-maxing (or is there? ), but it does suck that a character feels almost useless in combat unless they dip. The motivation on a Roleplay server should never be that you're compelled to play something just because it's too good not to. That's basically Pathfinder in a nutshell. That shouldn't be Arelith.

I've been told by a friend that the first versions of D&D were all about pure-classing. AD&D did a great job as a well of it. It was only until 3rd and 3.5 were introduced that multi-classing almost became a must. PF hit the nail on that coffin when they introduced a bazillion numbers, feats, mechanics, etc.

Some people in this thread seem to think I want pure-classes to be more powerful than multiclasses.

I do, though.

Also, everything Lorkas said +1

I find multi-classing to be very powerful in 5th edition as most classes are very front loaded.

Can I make a joke about characters who lack discipline being most likely to get a spanking? Hurr.

[Artenides]

Life without discipline is the same as EartH without art: eh.

My first character on this server had no discipline at all. For some reason those nasty monsters sensed it and constantly knocked me down. A usual fight started with me being knocked down, half of my companions were desperately trying to heal me, the other half were killing the mobs. It was fun until it wasn't... And yes, raise scrolls were heavily used. Mostly because those knockdowns knocked me to the realm of Kelemvor.

Taking a few fighter/bard/(whoever has discipline) does not ruin your rp concept.

[IIllII]

I played a pure level 30 drood. She was able to solo everything in PvE.

[susitsu]

This isn't fifth edition, I'm not sure why you're even talking about "required feats" considering what Pathfinder offers is far more thematic depth to their classes and especially pure-classing, which is why I mention it (In-fact, multiclassing generally seems weaker in Pathfinder to me, (clerics in pathfinder especially get my love)) and as mentioned above, multiclassing is still the powervul choice in fifth edition.

3.5 is a bit of a mess, but it's clearly built for multiclassing. Power capping comes far too early for many classes, and you're left without a reason to even go further.

But even then, not only that, I play DND when I want to build more competitively. Pathfinder, in all my years, has always, absolutely, worked so much better for progressive party-play and cooperation, whereas DnD is where most of my in-party conflicts have occurred (and been won.)

Pathfinder has an actually clean system, even.

[Nitro]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

Actually that is so far from the truth. 5th Edition, the lastest D&D mostly favors pure classing. But at the same time, you don't get penalized for multi-classing.

We must not have been playing the same 5ed, 2 fighter levels for action surge gives so much power to almost any class, and many of them have level 1 or 3 features that synergize extremely well with other classes (level 3 pact of the tome warlock for shillelagh, hello CHA attack/damage paladin).

The only edition when multiclassing didn't significantly increase your characters power was 4ed, but that's because multiclassing in that edition was some weird brainchild that required two chapters to explain how it worked properly.

[MissEvelyn]

DND is built for multiclassing. If you're interested in pure classing, look to Pathfinder.

Actually that is so far from the truth. 5th Edition, the lastest D&D mostly favors pure classing. But at the same time, you don't get penalized for multi-classing.

We must not have been playing the same 5ed, 2 fighter levels for action surge gives so much power to almost any class, and many of them have level 1 or 3 features that synergize extremely well with other classes (level 3 pact of the tome warlock for shillelagh, hello CHA attack/damage paladin).

The only edition when multiclassing didn't significantly increase your characters power was 4ed, but that's because multiclassing in that edition was some weird brainchild that required two chapters to explain how it worked properly.

Sure, there's cheesy dips like that in 5e. But they're absolutely not necessary. And you're not going to become more powerful from doing it. In fact your powerspike is going to take longer partially because you're giving up the ability to get early ability score advancement or a feat.
And Action Surge in a isn't THAT powerful in 6-8 encounters per day. I mean it's great, but absolutely not necessary.
Plus you give up capstone abilities which are gained at level 20. In contrast to NWN and PF, there are no capstone abilities there. No reward for sticking with pure class.

My point is, in PF and Arelith there are dips that are necessary. No class is weaker from not having Action Surge (it being an example in this case) in 5th edition D&D. In its own way, a class might be stronger from going pure.

[Ork]

I think the issue is this: the false dichotomy between pure & multiclass. People who tout pure say that multiclass cheapens the experience and pure ought be rewarded for valiantly staying so. Multiclass see that people who refuse to multiclass do so merely because of some moral or philosophical purism and therefore look upon multiclasses as a perversion.

In the end, it's just a game. Let's give cool cookies to people who want to play a pure, and let's also make multiclassing viable and enjoyable for everyone else.

[Rags]

It's totally possible to play a caster without Discipline. However, the perks of remaining pure class are quite limited in comparison to multiclassing. It basically comes down to, depending on the multiclass:

Pure:
Higher Caster Level
Longer Duration Spells
Slightly more scaling on certain spells

Multi:
Discipline
Higher AC
Additional Skills

(Probably forgetting a difference in both of these, but the point is made.)

Having Discipline is vital for any exchanges with other characters. Other skills from multiclassing are a nice bonus, too; bluff, detection skills, etc. The difference in AC can be massive, too. Druids multiclassing in Monk will have significantly higher AC.

In terms of PvE content - you'll likely do fine as a pure anything. However, when it comes to PvP content.. You're going to have a difficult time, unless you're fighting lower levels, new players, mechanically unaware individuals.

[Astral]

I played Rayne Mashavelle years ago. He was a bard bg fighter, str based, with no discipline whatsoever. Worth mentioning that the character had above average ac as a back up and a very one dimensional haste>divine shield/might> bard/curse songs > attack and win within 1 min or RUN. From my experience, the higher your ac is, the more overrated discipline becomes. I lvled this bard to 30 without missing it at all, but that's the only time I've ever done it and I would never recommend anyone to play without discipline maxed out.

Also, unless your druid is utterly chaotic, I'm honestly with the opinion of monk dip. 99% of the time it wont have to change your druid concept at all and on the other hand, give you a lot of cookies for no cost.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I think the issue is this: the false dichotomy between pure & multiclass. People who tout pure say that multiclass cheapens the experience and pure ought be rewarded for valiantly staying so. Multiclass see that people who refuse to multiclass do so merely because of some moral or philosophical purism and therefore look upon multiclasses as a perversion.

In the end, it's just a game. Let's give cool cookies to people who want to play a pure, and let's also make multiclassing viable and enjoyable for everyone else.

I mean... I play "pure casters" because RP'ly they have a few more numbers on their character sheet to say they're a "better" mage, for example. Caster level counts, and when you are comparatively analyzing the caster level of elminster's fireball versus, say, captain Laurick's fireball wand, you could (IC) comparatively say whose was bigger- and proportionately how much bigger (two times as big? No, it was three times as big, at least!)

One of the biggest perks to playing a pure mage is also (normally) the dispel factor- when mord's is properly uncapped for dispels, a level 30 mage has a 5% swing over the mage that dipped for discipline per dip level. This same logic functions in level 20 environments, except in level 20 environments you aren't going into a high enough level range for artificial caster level caps to be an issue.

I actually strongly feel the artificial cap on dispels here helps maintain the dominance of dipping as a "building necessity," for any primary caster class.

Not being able to be better at dispelling than a level 20 caster even though you're a level 30 caster is one less reason to take 30 levels instead of 27, and when dealing with raw numbers, mechanically speaking there are woefully few reasons to begin with.

[Tetra]

,

[Teshil]

OP: As a caster, no matter the class, your job is to keep meeleers out of your face. Discipline is irrelevant to this.

[Rodent]

You can take a few measures to manage without discipline, as a Druid.

First I would suggest cross-classing Hide, MS and Tumble if you can manage. Your spells boost hide by a great amount and you have some natural bonuses, and being able to stealth will avoid you a fair deal of trouble in PvE so your discipline won't be challenged that often. Summon your things, stealth around, only pop out of stealth to do healing or the occassional spell. The tumble is for AC, which is point two.

Try to get Improved Expertise. Without a monk dip your AC won't get to the incredible levels Totems can reach but you can still make it pretty high. I want to say somewhere close to 60, with the mode running. Druids do not have that many damaging spells and you want your summons to do most of the dirty work, so you can bring them into play and hunker down in Imp Expertise, continually walking away from any enemy and kiting.

Value invisibility and haste potions. You won't have UMD, but those two things you can chug even when shaped and they'll help you keep distance.

Non-disc builds are always at danger if you get into PvP but if you are prepared you can certainly make a good showing of it. Opening with your top summon (Likely EDK) and your companion while you polymorph afterwards and try to get out of sight is a good play, anyone fighting you will find an EDK hard to ignore. Remember you can use epic spells from a polymorph so if you have something from evocation you can use it to kill off a wounded enemy.

So essentially, stack AC, try to stack sneaking ability and stock up on ways to break LOS.

[Meliboeus]

I've played numerous wizards and one Rogue / Wizard (dearly loved if dearly underpowered) none of which had a single point in Discipline. It's fine. Wizards are all about tactics. And contingencies. Having a quickened Invisibility for when the nasty Barbarian munches through your summons and is about to carve you in twain is essential.

Having said that, unless you're playing a Wild Mage a 27/3 Wizard / Bard or Ranger will be stronger.

[Peppermint]

I'm not at all opposed to pure class cookies. I did give Healers one, afterall (though I still feel multiclassing a Healer is overall stronger).

That said, I suppose I just can't relate to the notion that multiclassing is somehow bad or detracts from the game. If my mage dips a few bard levels for discipline, he's still a mage. He still plays like a mage. He's still roleplayed like a mage, and if you interact with him, you can be very much assured he will seem like a mage.

Were we to instead give pure mages some perk that gives them similar viability, nothing would change. I'd still be playing a mage that was very much a mage, and nothing roleplay-related would be affected whatsoever.

This feels very much like quibbling over some meaningless dialogue on a character sheet. On a roleplay server, there are far more interesting things to focus on.

YMMV, I suppose.

[Lorkas]

It's not bad and it doesn't detract from the game, but you shouldn't be able to do it and still be exactly as strong at wizardry as a more focused mage is.

It just isn't as interesting choice when it's always straight up better to multiclass than it is to focus. I like to multiclass sometimes and I like to focus sometimes. Why shouldn't I be a better mage if I focus on that than I am if I learn to do other stuff also?

[Rwby]

Particularly because of the skill dumping. It's not like you drop three levels in fighter, and become as adept as not being knocked down in melee as a level three fighter. You can become as adept at not being knocked down as a level _Thirty_ fighter.

Compratively that's a huge mechanical difference for that slight dip. What does that represent in character? I took a couple of months out to learn some combat techniques and became as amazing as those people that spent their entire careers focused on it?

[Opustus]

If you're going for Dragon shape, it's to some avail: Cross-class 15 + Huge size 8 + STR modifier 25 + whatever Discipline stuff there is available = at least 48. That's enough to at least save against attack rolls.