Arelith

I am not against dips, generally speaking, but with favoured souls not getting divine might/shield, I do wonder if we should review the feats as it pushes all non evil sorcerors to be paladins. And blackgaurd in it self should represent a champion of evil. Not saying people, don't rp this, but rping it should be a motivation of inspiration, not mechanics. But i wouldnt want to ruin brycers

I think brycer builds are great example or a concept that can be built around a dip rather than a dip being mandatory. Because there are dozens of ways or building martial warriors, a brycer is truly an option versus sorcadin.


What if divine shield maxed out at 10 a.c.? This would even maybe allow favoured souls to have it.

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:01 am I am not against dips, generally speaking, but with favoured souls not getting divine might/shield, I do wonder if we should review the feats as it pushes all non evil sorcerors to be paladins.

or worse: Harpers

the fact that the harper subclasses are optimal for building is honestly far worse than someone dipping 3 levels of Rogue or BG for skills or saves, as it encourages people to take a class that has far more RP implications than even Paladin, imo.

I love these threads.

"I don't agree with other players dipping into certain classes to gain mechanical power, because I feel it stunts build diversity. Because I feel this way, things must change for everyone."

If you don't want to dip for mechanical reasons, no one is forcing you to do so. You are free to dip into whatever class you like. But please don't tell me that I can't build a certain way, because it is mechanically optimal.

Now this was a good thing to see, rather than rumor about buying more books.

I searched for "multiclassing and balance" - the real title and search thing is "Multiclassing in d&d 3rd edition enworld" - and ran across a thread on enworld about the design of multiclassing in 3e - 5e.

What I've found interesting so far is in 3e, they basically admit it was more about freedom, or rather "consequences, not restrictions" and "anything goes". But with that it is admitted, that there will be a majority of build combos that are weaker and a portion of those that are stronger.

I'll try to read through the rest.
4e did away with anything goes multiclassing, 5e allows it but has somethings covered with universal proficiency bonus and ability minimums etc. 5e still has problems though. 13th age the designers apparently restricted it to something like only half CL / half CL and another, but this overall restricted the choices for better consideration or something.
But yeah, it's a big thing that's still changing and apparently they don't even have answer for, at least in the first post.
And I guess prestige classes are a part of the discussion too.

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:01 am as it pushes all non evil sorcerors to be paladins.

Bard and ranger have both traditionally been good dips on arcane spellcasters.

I'm really glad I found that and contributed to the discussion conceptually in that way. I think with that design idea and admission posted about the multiclass system, we might be able to start addressing this at least conceptually.

Since the class combos that are weaker outnumber the stronger one's significantly, and it's all still up in the air, I think we can agree doing something about it is going to be a massive change for Arelith. Sure, you might fix things for the most powerful dips to bring them to tier 2. But everything below tier 2 or whatever is weaker, and on and on. There might be different ideas that can address it, and the ways other editions or systems did it will also be a massive change. For the short term, it seems to me the imbalance was designed and is here to stay.

I think with this all coming together from that thread for me, it seems short term on Arelith we might just want to simply recognize that competitive PVP is it's own thing. Since it is it's own thing, it doesn't speak badly of players who are not really doing that thing in the way that it's been working on Arelith so far. You can rp your characters, but competitive PVP involves a different set of builds and so on.

Adhemar Leddra wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:22 am

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 5:01 am as it pushes all non evil sorcerors to be paladins.

Bard and ranger have both traditionally been good dips on arcane spellcasters.

Not nearly the same league as a paladin dip for sorceror. This is honestly the dip situation thst bothers me. I do believr our community is capable of role-playing it, i don't want our community to be pressured into it. Its why i think some divine cap might be useful. Like a flat 10 or 2x class level (so 6 pal would still allow saves and 12 cha bonus to a.c.) as this might be able to put the feats on the table for favoured soul as well.

Huh..already a topic for this.

Was just shooting the breeze on discord when this randomly came up.

Every dex build has a monk dip..its sort of ridiculous. 3 levels of monk and now you have extra attacks, immunity to poison, extra speed,and a sky high ac.

These monk feats should involve a lot more investment as a monk in a bunch of our opinions..and i see a whole lot more peoples too based on THIS thread lol

Aren wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 am I love these threads.

"I don't agree with other players dipping into certain classes to gain mechanical power, because I feel it stunts build diversity. Because I feel this way, things must change for everyone."

If you don't want to dip for mechanical reasons, no one is forcing you to do so. You are free to dip into whatever class you like. But please don't tell me that I can't build a certain way, because it is mechanically optimal.

It's not a binary argument. Maybe a few people think everyone should be pure classed and multiclassing should not be allowed but that's not mainstream. What a lot of people are saying is certain dips should be examined and adjusted because a dip brings a power level greater than most other classes and class combos on Arelith and that throws both PVE and PVP out of whack.

That's not limiting anyone's customization choices but it might temper some of the builds that have pretty outlandish benefits. This already happens anyway so it's not a new concept.

Wuthering wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 pm

Aren wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 am I love these threads.

"I don't agree with other players dipping into certain classes to gain mechanical power, because I feel it stunts build diversity. Because I feel this way, things must change for everyone."

If you don't want to dip for mechanical reasons, no one is forcing you to do so. You are free to dip into whatever class you like. But please don't tell me that I can't build a certain way, because it is mechanically optimal.

It's not a binary argument. Maybe a few people think everyone should be pure classed and multiclassing should not be allowed but that's not mainstream. What a lot of people are saying is certain dips should be examined and adjusted because a dip brings a power level greater than most other classes and class combos on Arelith and that throws both PVE and PVP out of whack.

That's not limiting anyone's customization choices but it might temper some of the builds that have pretty outlandish benefits. This already happens anyway so it's not a new concept.

This is more or less what I meant in my original post. Im not sure where people are getting that I am totally against multi-classing as a whole. Im not in any way, shape, or form against multiclassing. I just believe that the classes I specifically mentioned are sore thumbs that can be toned down mechanically and stop being so front-loaded for just 3 levels. I realize I was wrong to use RP examples or to even throw that into my original post when in reality, it is the mechanical benefits that I have problems with.. And what appears a lot of people have problems with.

Aren wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 am I love these threads.

"I don't agree with other players dipping into certain classes to gain mechanical power, because I feel it stunts build diversity. Because I feel this way, things must change for everyone."

If you don't want to dip for mechanical reasons, no one is forcing you to do so. You are free to dip into whatever class you like. But please don't tell me that I can't build a certain way, because it is mechanically optimal.

Apply that logic to when monks were super OP. Why dont we just create one class with all the mechanical features so everyone can be balanced playing the same mechanical optimal class. The mechanics of classes have always pushed trend of what gets played and thus effect the server as a whole.

I really don't agree with half of what the original poster said, but also find your logic a bit skewed. Maybe we as individuals also want to play what is mechanically optimal while having more choices. I feel the original poster does not really understand Arelith though if he thinks people play brycers (pal dip warriors) purely from a power standpoint.

Dijhin wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:21 pm

Wuthering wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 pm

Aren wrote: Sun Apr 12, 2020 7:33 am I love these threads.

"I don't agree with other players dipping into certain classes to gain mechanical power, because I feel it stunts build diversity. Because I feel this way, things must change for everyone."

If you don't want to dip for mechanical reasons, no one is forcing you to do so. You are free to dip into whatever class you like. But please don't tell me that I can't build a certain way, because it is mechanically optimal.

It's not a binary argument. Maybe a few people think everyone should be pure classed and multiclassing should not be allowed but that's not mainstream. What a lot of people are saying is certain dips should be examined and adjusted because a dip brings a power level greater than most other classes and class combos on Arelith and that throws both PVE and PVP out of whack.

That's not limiting anyone's customization choices but it might temper some of the builds that have pretty outlandish benefits. This already happens anyway so it's not a new concept.

This is more or less what I meant in my original post. Im not sure where people are getting that I am totally against multi-classing as a whole. Im not in any way, shape, or form against multiclassing. I just believe that the classes I specifically mentioned are sore thumbs that can be toned down mechanically and stop being so front-loaded for just 3 levels. I realize I was wrong to use RP examples or to even throw that into my original post when in reality, it is the mechanical benefits that I have problems with.. And what appears a lot of people have problems with.

i think brycers are, (BH/pal dips) are a good thing that creates variety of how one can build rp a holy/unholy warrior. There are people who just RP paladins poorly if its 3 levels of paldins or 23 levels of paladin (there are optimal high lvl paladins too). Both should be RPed as full on paladins.

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:34 am i think brycers are, (BH/pal dips) are a good thing that creates variety of how one can build rp a holy/unholy warrior. There are people who just RP paladins poorly if its 3 levels of paldins or 23 levels of paladin (there are optimal high lvl paladins too). Both should be RPed as full on paladins.

This. 100%. Thank you.
Brycers are awesome and should be RPed as paladins, one way or another. Paladin oath is paladin oath. That's why you get fear immunity at lvl 1. If people actually took a brief look at monks or paladins in the setting, they would notice it takes very strict vows to be a monk or to become a paladin. Its something that comes with SUCH a big RP toll that they should do what they do at early levels. And that before even going back to the fact that none of it is mechanically game breaking at this point and only create building diversity, something very very important to me personally.

Aeralad wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:22 am "Having only 3 levels of paladin means you must play it as such."
I'm wondering about the phrasing here with regards to paladin and bg whatever class you want mentioned above for HAVING to...

I''m wondering it should be "if you choose paladin and play against alignment, your alignment change will result in a loss of your features."

It's a bit different than MUST. Like what if I wanted to play a paladin at start who over time becomes a pirate and accepts the loss of the paladin features? Is that acceptable or not per the setting?
I don't care either way, it's just for clarification.
Also for clarification about the loss of the features, or will it instead be a delevel? A delevel might be good to, but it's like oh crap I gotta do all those writs again and I can't be with these people at my earlier level anymore whatever.

IIRC, the current server stance on this is that there are no Paladin-Transformations-Into-Blackguards, nor is there remain a paladin but have your powers stripped. If your paladin falls, they lose their paladin levels- which may necessitate a deletion and recreation, if paladin was taken at level 1. Accordingly, this is only supposed to happen after a serious talking to about the character's behavior and a chance at correction.

There's an argument to be made for allowing paladins to transform to blackguards when they fall, but I suspect that's not something the team would want to be accessed too easily (automated), nor necessarily have to deal with the slippery slope of allowing it by application, which would likely cause them a bunch of extra work- so I suspect the way to make sure you're really invested in the story of a falling paladin is to cause it to include loss of levels and still be willing to undergo the journey.

It's rough, but I can see the logic.

Kuma wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 11:39 am 3 levels of paladin, rogue, or whatever, does not need to be roleplayed as if you had 30 levels of them - they are different levels, different styles, different flavours. is this a controversial opinion?

That depends on the context and implications of your statement. I agree that a level 3 paladin is not a divine paragon recognized by every militant member of his faith like a level 30 one might be, for sure. I do, however, still believe that a paladin loses their powers for willfully committing evil actions, and if you're taking the dip for the divine benefits, you need to appease papa/mama Good-God/dess-X, or IC it follows that you should lose those benefits entirely, whether you have 3 levels in the class or 30.

AstralUniverse wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 4:27 am

malcolm_mountainslayer wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 12:34 am i think brycers are, (BH/pal dips) are a good thing that creates variety of how one can build rp a holy/unholy warrior. There are people who just RP paladins poorly if its 3 levels of paldins or 23 levels of paladin (there are optimal high lvl paladins too). Both should be RPed as full on paladins.

This. 100%. Thank you.
Brycers are awesome and should be RPed as paladins, one way or another. Paladin oath is paladin oath. That's why you get fear immunity at lvl 1. If people actually took a brief look at monks or paladins in the setting, they would notice it takes very strict vows to be a monk or to become a paladin. Its something that comes with SUCH a big RP toll that they should do what they do at early levels. And that before even going back to the fact that none of it is mechanically game breaking at this point and only create building diversity, something very very important to me personally.

I very much agree with this summation. I think that dips are fine- but I would also suggest that certain concepts involving divine obligations should probably more carefully mind said obligations and be observed with a little more scrutiny, player-side and topside respectively, especially when dips are involved.

I'm in the camp that says caps should be implemented on divine grace, matching the level. So to get +10 saves you need 10 pally levels, or black guard levels. I would also make shield block missles even if you don't have abj focus, to balance it out some.

maybe cap div grace and div might/shield duration and potency to 3xDiv level

This wouldnt affect majority paladin or bg

Div dips would be capped at 9 uni/ac/damage

Sorcadins would be hit the most, with some losses to their uni/ac, or to cl. A 26/4 would stop at 12, vs 14. A 27/3 would stop at 9 (but still be able to cap dodge ac if they take ema).

Not sure if this is enough tho. Alternative is make div grace require 5 levels, like Harper paragon. Problem is, that makes these dips substantially worse than paragon. I think paragon should lose some of its free feats; maybe just make it give power attack for free at lvl 1.

Making it take 5 levels would definitely hit sorcadins, as they would lose their 26 bonus feat and have to take a hit to their cl if they wanted the saves (note I am NOT saying to give turn undead at lvl 5 paladin, just div grace).

Bardadins would lose a feat, as they would have to go 20/5/5 instead of 21/6/3.

Div rogues would lose a feat, having to go 19/6/5

Brycer would take a hit, having to go 22/5/3 (and lose the 23 fighter ab, which is a big ouch)

Div archers would lose a feat, having to go 22/5/3 instead of 23/4/3 or 21/6/3

Just some ideas

A part of me wonders if we need to look at dipping through the lens of restriction/nerfing, or we look at it through the lens of buffing other classes.

I always get really sad when thinking of a new build because of how much some classes just overwhelm you with so many 'things' with such little investment. It's crazy how much 3 levels of bard, paladin, monk, ranger, and rogue can give you.

I wish I could 3 level dip in barbarian, druid, cleric, or sorcerer. I wish those classes gave me some tools that would make me want to create some new janky build, but right now they require so much investment.

This has always been a problem with DnD though - high-investment classes vs. low-investment classes and the rewards and mechanical benefits they give. Heck, in current 5E the best builds require splashing 1 level of paladin. Dipping hasn't been solved. I don't know if we're ever going to solve it.

Dijhin wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:49 pm A group of friends and I had the thought of making it where these classes require you to have the majority of levels in them to gain these powerful bonuses.

By doing that you'll penalize people who do not powerbuild and will encourage powerbuilding instead.

Arelith has "play your sheet" rule, which means that a tiny dip still means you're member of that class.
Fighter means that your character spent some time training somewhere learning use of martial weaponry and heavy armor.
ROgue means that your character is pretty much a licensed crook, or knew a lot of crooks in the life (otherwise why would you know secret language of the thieves).
A paladin is still subject to his/her vows.
A cleric, even with 3 levels has direct hotline to their god.

Blackguard is actulaly a huge deal, because becoming one requires you to bargain with fiends and likely sell your soul. Same deal as a warlock, pretty much.

So... feel free to report, as others said.

Shame on all of you.

Void wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:47 pm

Dijhin wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:49 pm A group of friends and I had the thought of making it where these classes require you to have the majority of levels in them to gain these powerful bonuses.

By doing that you'll penalize people who do not powerbuild and will encourage powerbuilding instead.

This doesn't make sense. Of the 27/3 Sorc/Pally and 15/15 Sorc/Pally, only the former would suffer under the suggestions people are making here. The latter, someone who is clearly not powerbuilding, would be unaffected.

DangerDolphin wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:22 am

Void wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:47 pm

Dijhin wrote: Fri Apr 10, 2020 12:49 pm A group of friends and I had the thought of making it where these classes require you to have the majority of levels in them to gain these powerful bonuses.

By doing that you'll penalize people who do not powerbuild and will encourage powerbuilding instead.

This doesn't make sense. Of the 27/3 Sorc/Pally and 15/15 Sorc/Pally, only the former would suffer under the suggestions people are making here. The latter, someone who is clearly not powerbuilding, would be unaffected.

Let's take monk, player that plays monk from level 1, and move cleave from level 1 to level 15. Or, if you feel particularly malevolent, along with flurry of blows.

Yeah, they're going to be affected, a lot, at early levels too, because powerful bonuses make big difference early on, and you need them.

Whatever it is you people propose shoudl not affect people who play sorcerer 30 and paladin 30. In any way. As powerbuilding is not the only way to play, and by focusing on it, you'll change experience of other people.

----

If you want to disable dipping, you'll pretty much need to ban multiclassing and make it application only.

Yeah but the latter is playing a character that's pretty much broken and won't be a good sorcerer, a good paladin or anything in between. Nobody who has a basic understanding of the game is going to play an even split on a caster, that just plain doesn't work.

I think the comparison is between a 27/3 sorc/paladin, which is likely too good because of saves and divine shield, and a 27/3 sorc/bard, which is perfectly playable but only sits at "above average" on the power spectrum. We want to be able to multiclass to customize characters who aren't exactly like everyone else's and we want to be able to have some side skills or cover some weaknesses inherent to the class in PVP but there are some loopholes when you combine classes that throw everything out of whack.

The only way I could really see to fix these imbalances is to look at the most ridiculously powerful combos and close the loopholes with careful consideration and on a case by case basis. Don't screw everyone over by limiting skilldumps and multiclassing but specifically target the things that are just too good. It's already been done with a lot of classes (druid/monk synergy is toned way down, for example.)

That would take quite a bit of effort and fine tuning of course and the forum arguments would be a cesspool.

Wuthering wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:45 am The only way I could really see to fix these imbalances is to look at all of the most ridiculously powerful combos and close the "loopholes".

Targeted limitations? This could work, as it doesn't screw up the game to people not using a powerbuild.

Basically... the problem with "Let's move ability to another level" is that it affects a game for many. While "let's forbid this combo" affects game of a few.

Most approaches are not anywhere near as extreme as you are suggesting. They are a slight increase (like HiPS) but most adjustments tend to be based on class levels. No one is moving cleave to level 15 now.

Void wrote: Mon Apr 13, 2020 8:47 pm By doing that you'll penalize people who do not powerbuild and will encourage powerbuilding instead.

Void wrote: Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:50 am Targeted limitations? This could work, as it doesn't screw up the game to people not using a powerbuild.

I've picked up on your use of powerbuilding as a pejorative and think you should respect the people who enjoy applying mathematics and their experience with the game to their character builds because it's perfectly valid too.

This whole thread screams like people brought knives to gun fights and wonder why they lost

edit: a better analogy would be wondering why you lost to scissors when you chose paper