Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

How come your side accept that if pures are not the best no one plays them, but at the same time seems to think that people will still play multiclasses if they are not the best?

---

By definition, only 1 thing can be "the best". I don't think that either Pure or Multiclass should be better than the other (although perfect balance is almost impossible to achieve). What I would like to see is more truth to the saying "Jack of all trades = Master of none".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

Did you not see the part about there being so many more Multiclass possibilities than Pure?

---

The logical connection is missing.

Or are you saying that because there are so many possible multiclasses there will always be some that are on par with pure builds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

~snipped to save space~

---

Ranger archers are a lot of fun and, I have to say, they can be pretty deadly and effective even into epic levels. They're not as easy to play as people seem to think they are. Kiting doesn't necessarily mean always running away. It could mean running in circles and, in my opinion, if you're a skilled kiter, then this is what you do. When my currently 18 druid/2 ranger was pure ranger archer and when I was in a group with him, I really never kited. I never got kicked from groups for using my bow, either. I put everything I had into bow use and rarely switched to melee weapons because I could simply put out more damage with my bow, even when I was toe-to-toe with the mob. However, melee never had to chase mobs that I managed to pull to me with my bow. I've always hated it when I am on a melee and I won't do it to other people. Besides, if the mob gets all the way to me, then there's something wrong with my build or the way I'm playing it. As far as I'm concerned, my choices when the mob gets all the way to me are these:
1. Kill it fast (probably with group help)
OR
2. Die.

Seriously. If the mob gets all the way to me, melee's aren't going to have to chase it. It's either me or the monster at that point and, if I die, then I deserved to be a soul stone.

Now, the next time my character gets TR'd, will it be pure ranger? Almost certainly not and this is because I'm interested in trying different splits that use the bow. In fact, I'll probably TR back into 18 druid/2 ranger because that build was incredibly fun during heroic levels and because putting on a couple more druid past lives is desirable for me. Even once those are done, I'm interested in at least a low fighter splash and trying out being an archer in heavy armor with the Stalwart stance going. A paladin/ranger split is interesting to me from the perspective that I'd like to see how the paladin self-healing works. I'm even interested in a ranger/rogue split. We'll see what they do with fighters in the future. If that's interesting, I could see doing more than a 3 level fighter splash. Honestly, a 12 fighter split is interesting from the standpoint of adding in Greater Weapon Specialization. Now, once all that's done, I might go back to a pure ranger. I'm not sure. Depends on how much fun being a pure ranger would be, as compared to any of the other splits I'm considering. This has nothing to do with how much damage they do, either; DPS has to be fairly good, but I'm not going to squeeze every last point out, either. 80% is fine, because the last 20% costs me too much in terms of flexibility and fun.

I disagree that the "average player" can't do anything with pure ranger. I don't know how you'd rate me, but my druid/ranger character was pure ranger for 2 lives after MotU came out. That character was a ton of fun and had respectable DPS. I don't think I really did anything special with him, either. Yes, I took PBS. I did not take Shot on the Run (I know some people do and they like it; it's not for me because it provides too little benefit). Besides, I tend to stand still quite a lot, as you probably guessed. This also lets me make decent use of Archer's Focus.

Also, I'm not sure why you think it's unfortunate that bard is more common as a multi-class. I TR'd my bard into her second life after the bard update. I got her to level 9 and was so bored I was actually falling asleep while trying to play her. Got a +3 lesser heart from the store and swapped two bard levels for rogue levels, making her 7/2 at 9th level and the fun factor increased dramatically. Bard is perfectly viable as a pure class and I had planned to make mine pure for her 2nd life, as well.

As far as 18/2 rogue/artificer splits, I'm not sure what the benefits are there. Sure, you get 2 more UMD for scrolls, you can use a runearm, and you get a dog for lever pulling. Do you really need the extra UMD? My rogue and rogue splits don't. The runearm is going to do barely any damage with only 2 artificer levels. So, that's relegated to a glorified box killer. We don't need to discuss the dog. It's a lever puller and that's situationally (and often enough) useful.

As for the rest of your post, you just lose me in confusion entirely. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make. If you're inclined to attempt to clarify, then I'll read that. If you're not so inclined, I'm not offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

15/5 was unheard of 2 years ago!

---

Actually, 15/5 has been with us since the enhancement update that came with MotU, which was 3 years, 3 months, and 11 days ago. Just sayin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

The problem is that when DDO was created it made it open season for Multi-Classers!

The ONLY restrictions left were certain alignment restrictions!

When Druid came out the Devs at that time compounded this issue by NOT making Druids require True Neutral {as they SHOULD HAVE DONE!}.

Warlock is even WORSE!
DDO has a No Evil Restriction thank Goodness!
But what did the Devs do? They created a Pact that ALLOWS Lawful Good! Virtually BEGGING us to go ahead and create Paladin Warlocks and Monk Warlocks! {Neither of which should be allowed in the FIRST PLACE!}.


Multi-Classing should be as strong as Pure yes!
BUT
It has to have Restrictions OTHERWISE No-one will play Pure!


Look: One of my first issues with DDO when I came to the game was that I couldn't create a PROPER Multiclassed Fighter/Mage/Thief {20/20/20}!
I realise now that in DDO terms that would be so ludicrously OP as to completely destroy any chance of anyone ever playing anything else!
I realise that the actual restriction of power on that build in PnP was that the Player playing that build would level at a very slow rate next to his companions {who by the time he was Lvl 5 would be Lvl 8!}.
I realise that in DDO where levelling to 20 can be done in 3 days {even without XP Pots or Otto's Stones or Iconics!} that taking 9 days to do the same thing on said character would be an easy decision to make!

One of the biggest restrictions of PnP was that most Groups starting at Lvl 1 wouldn't reach Level 20 if they played once a week for half a DECADE!
DDO doesn't have restrictions like that so needed to be much more strict about build options for multi-classing - Something which it has utterly failed to do!

---

That's because you're looking at the issue from an AD&D (2E) perspective. 2E had you take the best of each aspect of each class (THAC0, saves, etc) from classes where you split your experience among those classes. 3E (and 3.5) have you add the growth from each level to your existing character, so it works out in a completely different (but still internally consistent and functional) way. The *only* thing that DDO removed from multiclassing was restrictions on going back to Paladin or Monk if you leave the Paladin or Monk class. And DDO has some restrictions that P&P don't have (for instance, it would be 100% possible to have a multiclass Barbarian/Monk or Bard/Paladin if something happened to change your alignment).

I think that DDO does a good job with multiclass vs. pure. Multiclass is better in some instances and pure is better in some instances. It's easy to make a gimpy multiclass character, but a well constructed multiclass character can perform better in its chosen roles than many pure characters. That's good design right there. (The fact that some character classes are significantly weaker than other classes is poor design, but that's another issue entirely.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

15/5 was unheard of 2 years ago!

---

Only because 14/6 was vastly better because of the way enhancements were structured. 14/6 is just as unheard of today as 15/5 was back then (possible exception - someone who wants that one extra Monk feat).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

Or are you saying that because there are so many possible multiclasses there will always be some that are on par with pure builds?

---

What else could I be saying?

And not just on par either...There'll always be Multiclass options that beat many Pure options!

Pure Barb beats out multiclass Barb options at the moment BUT Pure Bard DOESN'T beat Multiclass Bard options!

Pure Paladin Vanguard has nowhere near the DPS of 15 Pally / 5 Ranger KotC/Tempest {and only slightly more survivability}!


Pure Sorc, Pure Wizard, Pure Cleric, Pure FavSoul were for YEARS superior to Multi-Class versions in EVERY WAY!
Do I hear you complaining about Multi-Classing being so far ahead now for those Classes? No I don't!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bartharok

Umm.. The rule doesnt say that you cant have three classes. But it does say that you can have TWO classes. In no place does it say that you can have three.

So it up to interpretation by the DM. In my case i would judge that you can have only 2, since three or more are never mentioned.

---

In my case I would say it can have as many as they qualify for as that's what my copy of the PHB explicitly states and that would be the source I would be using.

So, I will have to disagree with your statement about it saying that in no place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HungarianRhapsody

That's because you're looking at the issue from an AD&D (2E) perspective. 2E had you take the best of each aspect of each class (THAC0, saves, etc) from classes where you split your experience among those classes. 3E (and 3.5) have you add the growth from each level to your existing character, so it works out in a completely different (but still internally consistent and functional) way. The *only* thing that DDO removed from multiclassing was restrictions on going back to Paladin or Monk if you leave the Paladin or Monk class. And DDO has some restrictions that P&P don't have (for instance, it would be 100% possible to have a multiclass Barbarian/Monk or Bard/Paladin if something happened to change your alignment).

I think that DDO does a good job with multiclass vs. pure. Multiclass is better in some instances and pure is better in some instances. It's easy to make a gimpy multiclass character, but a well constructed multiclass character can perform better in its chosen roles than many pure characters. That's good design right there. (The fact that some character classes are significantly weaker than other classes is poor design, but that's another issue entirely.)

---

I was back then yes.

I believe I stated in that very post that I haven't felt that way in a long time.


You're wrong with your use of the word Multi-Classing for what DDO does however - It has far more similarities to what 1st and 2nd Ed. called Dual-Classing!

Multi-Classing is a system that went out of the window with 3rd Ed.
Dual-Classing got revamped and renamed!



As for your Barbarian/Monk or Bard/Paladin analogies it would take some serious rules-lawyering to get a DM {any DM} to allow that even if you'd had a forced alignment change!
And even if the DM did allow it you'd be looking at that character being turned into an NPC to go into the extremely long and rigorous training required for either of those Classes {Training that as a Lvl 1 Character you're assumed to have already completed} while you rolled up a new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

What else could I be saying?

---

You could be saying something like this: "It doesn't matter how badly off Multiclassing becomes comparative to Pure - So long as it's "Viable" people will still play it!"
Which you did.
It's hard to follow your post if you don't say what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

Pure Sorc, Pure Wizard, Pure Cleric, Pure FavSoul were for YEARS superior to Multi-Class versions in EVERY WAY!
Do I hear you complaining about Multi-Classing being so far ahead now for those Classes? No I don't!

---

No ofcourse you don't. I'd much rather have it this way than the other way around, which has been my point all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coyopa

Ranger archers are a lot of fun and, I have to say, they can be pretty deadly and effective even into epic levels. They're not as easy to play as people seem to think they are. Kiting doesn't necessarily mean always running away. It could mean running in circles and, in my opinion, if you're a skilled kiter, then this is what you do. When my currently 18 druid/2 ranger was pure ranger archer and when I was in a group with him, I really never kited. I never got kicked from groups for using my bow, either. I put everything I had into bow use and rarely switched to melee weapons because I could simply put out more damage with my bow, even when I was toe-to-toe with the mob. However, melee never had to chase mobs that I managed to pull to me with my bow. I've always hated it when I am on a melee and I won't do it to other people. Besides, if the mob gets all the way to me, then there's something wrong with my build or the way I'm playing it. As far as I'm concerned, my choices when the mob gets all the way to me are these:
1. Kill it fast (probably with group help)
OR
2. Die.

Seriously. If the mob gets all the way to me, melee's aren't going to have to chase it. It's either me or the monster at that point and, if I die, then I deserved to be a soul stone.

Now, the next time my character gets TR'd, will it be pure ranger? Almost certainly not and this is because I'm interested in trying different splits that use the bow. In fact, I'll probably TR back into 18 druid/2 ranger because that build was incredibly fun during heroic levels and because putting on a couple more druid past lives is desirable for me. Even once those are done, I'm interested in at least a low fighter splash and trying out being an archer in heavy armor with the Stalwart stance going. A paladin/ranger split is interesting to me from the perspective that I'd like to see how the paladin self-healing works. I'm even interested in a ranger/rogue split. We'll see what they do with fighters in the future. If that's interesting, I could see doing more than a 3 level fighter splash. Honestly, a 12 fighter split is interesting from the standpoint of adding in Greater Weapon Specialization. Now, once all that's done, I might go back to a pure ranger. I'm not sure. Depends on how much fun being a pure ranger would be, as compared to any of the other splits I'm considering. This has nothing to do with how much damage they do, either; DPS has to be fairly good, but I'm not going to squeeze every last point out, either. 80% is fine, because the last 20% costs me too much in terms of flexibility and fun.

I disagree that the "average player" can't do anything with pure ranger. I don't know how you'd rate me, but my druid/ranger character was pure ranger for 2 lives after MotU came out. That character was a ton of fun and had respectable DPS. I don't think I really did anything special with him, either. Yes, I took PBS. I did not take Shot on the Run (I know some people do and they like it; it's not for me because it provides too little benefit). Besides, I tend to stand still quite a lot, as you probably guessed. This also lets me make decent use of Archer's Focus.

---

From your posts I'd rate you as Top 20% easily!

And by your own admission you won't be playing Pure Ranger any time soon despite playing Archers commonly.

It's possible you're going through Druid Past Lives so I won't hold that against you.

You've also stated that you played that Pure Ranger in Groups - Get a decent group and a class that stands at the back is in a good place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coyopa

Also, I'm not sure why you think it's unfortunate that bard is more common as a multi-class. I TR'd my bard into her second life after the bard update. I got her to level 9 and was so bored I was actually falling asleep while trying to play her. Got a +3 lesser heart from the store and swapped two bard levels for rogue levels, making her 7/2 at 9th level and the fun factor increased dramatically. Bard is perfectly viable as a pure class and I had planned to make mine pure for her 2nd life, as well.

---

Well your own experience outright agrees with me!

Pure Bard is NOT fun!
Multi-Classing adds that Fun as well as a tonne more Power!

Pure Bard is the preserve of the Caster Bard {which hardly anyone plays}.

Pure Swashbuckler and Pure Warchanter are too far behind Multiclass variants. {Adding Rogue especially is a very easy way to make levelling more enjoyable!}.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coyopa

As far as 18/2 rogue/artificer splits, I'm not sure what the benefits are there. Sure, you get 2 more UMD for scrolls, you can use a runearm, and you get a dog for lever pulling. Do you really need the extra UMD? My rogue and rogue splits don't. The runearm is going to do barely any damage with only 2 artificer levels. So, that's relegated to a glorified box killer. We don't need to discuss the dog. It's a lever puller and that's situationally (and often enough) useful.

---

Did I say 2 Arti was better than Capstone Mechanic? I don't believe so.

I said that it wasn't as far behind as people make it out to be.

You forgot the Free Rapid Reload Feat as opposed to an almost certainly pointless Lvl 19 Rogue Feat.

The Runearm adds Dmg to every single shot - That adds up! {It's also nice for blowing up doors}.

Extra UMD is useful for many players - May save you a gear slot {swap in}.

No it's NOT better than Pure Mechanic but it does give an option that's not that far behind!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

You could be saying something like this: "It doesn't matter how badly off Multiclassing becomes comparative to Pure - So long as it's "Viable" people will still play it!"
Which you did.
It's hard to follow your post if you don't say what you mean.

---

You really need to read entire posts and stop cherry picking statements out of context.

Context is King and that's why when I make a statement like the one above I go on to add said context!


The difference between Multiclassing being blatantly more powerful than Pure and the other way round is that if Multiclassing is so much more powerful then the abundance of multi-class options makes Pure DEAD! {Except for Pure Flavour toons obviously}.
Whereas if Pure is more powerful then that won't kill Multi-Classing. Because the sheer number of options for Multi-Classing makes certain that there'll always be viable Multi-Class Builds!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

No ofcourse you don't. I'd much rather have it this way than the other way around, which has been my point all along.

---

Wow!

Just Wow!

You're actually saying that you're perfectly fine with Wizards, Clerics and FvSs being as blatantly underpowered as they are?

You're actually saying that you want say 6 Paladin/14 Sorc to be stronger than Pure Sorc in the casting department? Do you want it to have Lvl 9 Spells as well?


I wouldn't mind being able to play a Fighter/Mage/Thief that actually had viable spells BUT that simply isn't possible in DDO!
Not without completely destroying any reason to play Pure Wizard!



What I get from your posts is that you hate Pure Characters and want them gone - Well that's something that is a purely personal subjective view that cannot be argued with in any reasonable way.
So Goodbye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

As for your Barbarian/Monk or Bard/Paladin analogies it would take some serious rules-lawyering to get a DM {any DM} to allow that even if you'd had a forced alignment change!
And even if the DM did allow it you'd be looking at that character being turned into an NPC to go into the extremely long and rigorous training required for either of those Classes {Training that as a Lvl 1 Character you're assumed to have already completed} while you rolled up a new one.

---

For this in 3.5 specifically, there were PRC which addressed a lot of this. While being a paladin and a barbarian at the same time wasn't within the rules, champion of torm (later renamed to divine champion) allowed anyone who qualified for the PRE to receive most of the paladin bonuses without having to be LG. There were similar PRC which provided other class bonuses similar to core classes without the alignment restrictions. This was one of the things 3.5 got right IMO. If someone was CG and decided after playing for a bit that they wanted to serve the church (so to speak) similar to a paladin, there at least was a path for them to take PRC class wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fetchi

You make absolutely no sense. My will does change reality. Maybe your reality is changed from other people's will? That is a poor choice.

Back to the point of this thread - should a character that has more than 1 class be able to perform as well as a class that is pure. Absolutely not. You are sacrificing the ability to perform the best as one class for some benefit from another class.

No multiclass splashed with paladin should be able to perform better than a pure paladin at doing what a paladin does best.

No multiclass splashed with rogue should be able to perform better than a pure rogue at doing what a rogue does best.

Ect.

Oherwise, what would be the point of pure classes?

---

The problem is that what a class does best is kind of muddy even in D&D, much less in DDO where much of what classes do in D&D doesn't even apply. Then toss in the d20 system where not being pretty much just as capable, basically means being incapable. What's the point of having any trap skills if trap DC's will become unlikely or impossible to reach? Multi- and pure class rouges almost have to be at least nearly equal in skills due to how the game mechanics deal with skills. Else either multi-class characters would quickly become incapable of performing them or pure class characters would be able to simply take them for granted. Who would splash 1 level of rogue if it means blowing boxes by level 6ish and not even having a chance at 15ish?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

I would much rather have the 20 and 18/2 builds be dead and have a plethora of multiclasses be living than to have the 20 and 18/2 alive and the plethora of multiclasses dead. Preferably I would want the 20, 18/2 and the plethora of mutliclasses all be alive though, ofcourse.

---

Because you are willing to allow pure class builds to die you are pushing very hard for multi-class to be better. You say in one post (like this) that you want both, but your continued comments show that your goal is for multi-class to be superior in all things.

You are NOT seeking for balance, but you know that you cannot admit that and so you accuse those who really do want pure and multiclass to both have good builds of being "pure only" to hide your actual bias.

I posted several comments about the 18 and 20 cores you mentioned. I went and reread them because I might have missed something and I wanted to be fair in the discussion. You ignored it completely, why?

Maybe make your new signature, "Balance in all things as long as multiclass is better."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

The difference between Multiclassing being blatantly more powerful than Pure and the other way round is that if Multiclassing is so much more powerful then the abundance of multi-class options makes Pure DEAD! {Except for Pure Flavour toons obviously}.
Whereas if Pure is more powerful then that won't kill Multi-Classing. Because the sheer number of options for Multi-Classing makes certain that there'll always be viable Multi-Class Builds!

---

If all classes are structured as barbs, which is what's being asked for over and over by some people, then it wont matter that there are a large number of possible multiclasses, all the strong abilities will require 18/20 anyways.
So you are just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

You're actually saying that you're perfectly fine with Wizards, Clerics and FvSs being as blatantly underpowered as they are?

---

I rather pure wizard, clerics, FvSs are blatantly overpowered compared to multiclassed ones than the other way around.
Did you see the word 'rather' there? It's important. I do not think that it's optimal that any pure class is "blatantly underpowered". But if I had to choose between the pure or the multiclassed version being bad, I'd choose the pure just because that is only one build and not a whole set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

What I get from your posts is that you hate Pure Characters and want them gone

---

Then you have not been paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

From your posts I'd rate you as Top 20% easily!

---

Thank you. I'd be curious to better understand your perceptions. Probably a topic for a private message, though.

Quote:

---

And by your own admission you won't be playing Pure Ranger any time soon despite playing Archers commonly.

It's possible you're going through Druid Past Lives so I won't hold that against you.

You've also stated that you played that Pure Ranger in Groups - Get a decent group and a class that stands at the back is in a good place.

---

Well, I don't have the time to play that I once did. So, I tend to rotate through my characters somewhat slowly. Right now, I'm working on getting my bard through the last Shrouds she needs (7 left!), working on getting her through enough Fall of Truth runs that luck finally sides with me and gives me a Ring of Deceit for her, and having actual fun just playing through the different destinies (currently Exalted Angel). It's going to be ages before she gets TR'd because I want that ring! However, my druid/ranger-formerly-pure-ranger will get TR'd in there somewhere before the bard does, I'm sure. I've read rumors that they're going to add a pet to the ranger class. I don't know whether that's true or not. Even if it's not, I want the +6 to summons' stats in case I ever get to use one in low heroic levels again. Plus, 18 druid/2 ranger is just tons of fun. It's crazy. Use SLA's, Enlarge, Empower, Maximize, and you're a real killer, especially against undead and aberrations (and especially if you learn how to manage the SLA's to maximize the bane damage from the Season's Herald tree; I'm still trying to turn this into rote memory). I really like archers and I'm keen to try different splits. I'm hoping that, in the end, I'll go back to pure ranger.

As far as standing in the back, that doesn't always save you from mobs that decide you're lunch. I've been turned into a pocket rock many times, even when I've been standing in the back. Now, if you can get the group to let you do the pulling, this is a different story.

Quote:

---

Well your own experience outright agrees with me!

Pure Bard is NOT fun!
Multi-Classing adds that Fun as well as a tonne more Power!

Pure Bard is the preserve of the Caster Bard {which hardly anyone plays}.

Pure Swashbuckler and Pure Warchanter are too far behind Multiclass variants. {Adding Rogue especially is a very easy way to make levelling more enjoyable!}.

---

I don't think it's fair to say that "pure bard is not fun". It's accurate to say that "pure bard was not fun for Coyopa" and that's partly because I enjoy being able to do traps (and because I got sick of having to buy store rogues). I've seen pure bard Swashbucklers, though. I've even grouped with them. They're very competent and it seemed the player was having fun. I don't think having 2 rogue added that much power to my build. It just added utility and gave me evasion much earlier, which is powerful at low levels, I'll grant. Now, multi-classed Warchanters I can understand. Part of that, though, is the fact that a Warchanter really could use more than 7 feats. That's part of the reason my Warchanter went 17 bard/3 fighter. Plus, I wanted the Stalwart Defender stance.

Quote:

---

Did I say 2 Arti was better than Capstone Mechanic? I don't believe so.

I said that it wasn't as far behind as people make it out to be.

You forgot the Free Rapid Reload Feat as opposed to an almost certainly pointless Lvl 19 Rogue Feat.

The Runearm adds Dmg to every single shot - That adds up! {It's also nice for blowing up doors}.

Extra UMD is useful for many players - May save you a gear slot {swap in}.

No it's NOT better than Pure Mechanic but it does give an option that's not that far behind!

---

I never said or implied that you said that 2 artificer was better than the mechanic capstone. Seriously, I don't understand where you get this stuff from! What you actually said was that the Mechanic capstone isn't far enough ahead of an 18 rogue/2 arti split to make a "top tier player" go pure Mechanic. As far as the damage the runearm adds on every shot, I find it hard to believe that 6-ish damage on every shot is really that big of a deal, especially when the mob has thousands of hitpoints. Maybe I'm just not thinking about it right. As for the level 19 rogue feat, Skill Mastery and Slippery Mind are always useful. I carry a wand of fireball for blowing up doors when I lack the strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chai

For this in 3.5 specifically, there were PRC which addressed a lot of this. While being a paladin and a barbarian at the same time wasn't within the rules, champion of torm (later renamed to divine champion) allowed anyone who qualified for the PRE to receive most of the paladin bonuses without having to be LG. There were similar PRC which provided other class bonuses similar to core classes without the alignment restrictions. This was one of the things 3.5 got right IMO. If someone was CG and decided after playing for a bit that they wanted to serve the church (so to speak) similar to a paladin, there at least was a path for them to take PRC class wise.

---

Paladins that weren't Lawful Good were allowed long before 3.5!

Not all Gods are Lawful Good after all and the restriction was reduced to simply having to be the same alignment as one's God.

I still wouldn't even consider allowing a Barbarian who worshipped Torm to gain Paladin bonuses without having jumped through a lot of hoops!

Let's face it Barbarian is as much a Race as it is a Class - The Barbarian Class is on top of that!
A Paladin could have easily come from a Barbarian Clan BUT a Lvl 6 Barbarian suddenly deciding he wants to be a Paladin of Torm? THAT would require complete re-training, loss of Rage Benefits through that Training requiring him to reign his anger in etc. AND probably removal from the game for a specified period unless the entire Group was happy to sit through said Training!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axeyu

But if I had to choose between the pure or the multiclassed version being bad, I'd choose the pure just because that is only one build and not a whole set.

---

Why do you think "pure" is only "one" build?

Pure wizard:
PM necro focus
PM enchant focus
Robot AM

Pure cleric:
BB evo caster
Necro cleric
Aura cleric w/melee

Warlock
EB killer
necro focus killer
CC spec'd (saw one with crowd control the other day, surprised me too!)

Ranger:
Archer
TWF
Blend that ranges during manyshot and TWF during cooldown

Rogue:
INT Assassin
DEX assassin
Acrobat
Mechanic Repeater build

Paladin:
BF TWF KOTC
Human Vanguard sword and board

Bard:
Spellsinger
Swashbuckler
Warchanter (yes, I know those are the trees, but they are also three different ways to build a pure bard that work.)

Maybe the problem has been that you have not realize how many options there are in pure classes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FranOhmsford

Paladins that weren't Lawful Good were allowed long before 3.5!

Not all Gods are Lawful Good after all and the restriction was reduced to simply having to be the same alignment as one's God.

I still wouldn't even consider allowing a Barbarian who worshipped Torm to gain Paladin bonuses without having jumped through a lot of hoops!

Let's face it Barbarian is as much a Race as it is a Class - The Barbarian Class is on top of that!
A Paladin could have easily come from a Barbarian Clan BUT a Lvl 6 Barbarian suddenly deciding he wants to be a Paladin of Torm? THAT would require complete re-training, loss of Rage Benefits through that Training requiring him to reign his anger in etc. AND probably removal from the game for a specified period unless the entire Group was happy to sit through said Training!

---

The non LG paladins before 3.X were optional books or articles that most people didnt allow or at least those people I encountered and that was in my heavy travel and con days so I did encounter a lot of groups.