Quote Originally Posted by Darg View Post
I like class based RPGs because classes are meant to represent the character. Sure, you could use the lego analogy. The way I see it is as if you got the right pieces for the spaceship, but completely ignore the aesthetics and it's a jumbled mess of rainbow colors. Sure, you can justify it after the fact just like you can justify anything, but it just rings hollow to me. If the AC bonuses stacked, the real reason for that oracle/scaled fist dip is because you wanted that AC bonus, not because you wanted to be an oracle/monk multiclass. It's the same reason druids and other shapeshifters dip monk. They mechanically synergize, but they don't actually want to play a lawful neutral druid monk. They just want to be a better shapeshifter. Honestly it would be better represented by simply making an archetype that supports that.
What kind of terrible lego build only has one color? Your black ship is better with some well selected purple or red highlights. If you WANT a rainbow ship, thats awesome. And you should absolutely do that. But you certainly shouldn't feel the slightest pressure to only use grey bricks if you want to use others.

Class based RPGs are the worst. No one should have an identity like "Fighter" Luckily, 3.PF (or 5e) is not truly a class based RPG. It gives you building blocks so you can have the exact number of fighter pieces and druid pieces and template pieces you want. The best reason that a shapeshifter or oracle should dip monk is because they want the stuff you get from that level of monk. No better reason exists or could exist. Archetypes are fine, but are only actually a substitution if you have an archetype covering every possible combination of every possible class from Monk 1/Druid 9 to Druid 1/Monk 9 with every other single class in the game you may want to throw in for good measure, in case you wanted to be a rogue 1/monk 1/druid 8 or something.