Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Uska]

Optional rules still count - They were allowed as options!

Your DMs may have baulked at the idea - I would have if anyone asked me if they could be a Paladin of a Non-Good God!
BUT if a Player wanted to be a Paladin of say Pelor and asked me if he could have the same alignment as his God {NG} I'd have considered it.


But we're talking about the rules as written here and Optional Books/Dragon Magazine Articles count as Rules as Written!


3.5 put those rules in Prestige Classes {which I don't believe were in the PHB or DMG?} so you could just as easily state that 3.5 DMs didn't allow them either.

NO they dont always count they werent offical by any means

do you even play pnp any more? I played some with 6 different gms this past weekend well some 3.5 some 5th and some pathfinder as well as one 2nd ed game.

[hunzi2010]

I will admit it.... I love to multiclass. I love to try and fit class levels together to make some nicely working combos. I am getting rather ?annoyed? I guess you would call it with all the people that seem to think all the most powerful things MUST be in the 18/20 core.... Its annoying and completely contradictory to the whole point of having the build flexibility we do in this game. Should certain abilities be so powerful to be a must have for certain archtypes be so powerful to be a must? I dont think so either.

Should pure builds be viable? heck yes. Should they be the best? nope not in the least. A pure build is the easiest and simplest build to plan and as such should not be made to be the absolute best.

Just wanted to see what others think about the recent everything should be pure kick the forums seems to be headed down....

Sorry mate, I have been fighting the exact opposite. If you play a pure monk, you should then be able to have the best opportunity to use the monk skills, but this game will allow you to splash 3 classes and your monk abilities on a multiclass far out weigh a pure class. im sorry this is wrong. in no way shape or form if you sink all your levels into a pure class should you be outdone by a multi class. going multiclass is sacrificing the gain that class would get as a pure.
but in saying that, as a pure class you can only excel at your class skills and wont be able to then do what the multi class does. so as a pure monk, my prr is rubbish as I wear robes, but splash that with pally and fighter and use a sword and you out dps, save and resist more than you would from a monk. so to answer your 2nd part of the question, should a pally have the best prr v's a multi class, yes. to achieve a higher primary skill by splashing multiple classes is wrong.

just giving you my opinion.

[FranOhmsford]

From TSR's own published material:
Ex-Paladins

A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladin’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.
Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.


Ex-Barbarians

A barbarian who becomes lawful loses the ability to rage and cannot gain more levels as a barbarian. He retains all the other benefits of the class (damage reduction, fast movement, trap sense, and uncanny dodge).


Ex-Monks

A monk who becomes nonlawful cannot gain new levels as a monk but retains all monk abilities.
Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.


...all of this has been in print for 15 years now.

15 years would be when 3rd Ed. came out - I'm going back 20-25 years! {Even worse - Rage didn't even exist in 2nd Ed.! - Barbs were a later addition as a Class themselves and there was a Berserker Kit that was probably the forerunner of DDOs Frenzied Berserker but really far removed!}.

And none of that actually disagrees with anything I said!
You know why?
Because I wasn't talking about changing alignment after the fact!

That post was in reply to someone who said that a Barbarian could in fact gain Paladin benefits and why I specifically wouldn't allow any such thing to happen!

My previous posts about Dual-Classing specified over and over again that anyone wanting to Dual-Class into Paladin would have to be Lawful Good in the first place {So Barbs are right out!}.
Anyone wanting to Dual Class OUT of Paladin would also have to REMAIN Lawful Good!
They could Dual Class into Cleric or Wizard or Rogue but if they ever did anything their God disapproved of then Dual Class or no bye bye Paladin Levels and Hello Fighter levels!

[FranOhmsford]

Yeah, dual-classing that existed in original AD&D was hideous. It pretty much guaranteed that humans would always be single class characters and that Bards would never exist.

I hated the Dual-Classing rules - They were Horrid!

Multiclassing was fine though.

If I'm wrong in my use of the word multi-classing, then so is TSR because that's what they call it in 3.x (which is what DDO is based on).

That's what I said!

WotC took the 2nd Ed. Dual-Classing system and upgraded it.
WotC threw the 2nd Ed. Multi-Classing system out of the window.
WotC then went and called their updated Dual-Classing system Multi-Classing!

And you completely fail to understand how 3.x approaches multiclass characters in the first place. There is no extensive process for picking up a second (or more) core class in 3.x D&D. Picking up a second (or more) core class represents the fact that you aren't devoted exclusively to training in that one discipline and have a broader range of interests than "just Clericing" or "just Fightering", etc.

No....That's your reading of the rules as Law.

I prefer to adapt them to Lore.

You start life as a Barbarian that means you've been a Barbarian ALL YOUR LIFE! It's all you know...You were BORN a Barbarian....Taking the Barbarian Class is the culmination of your Childhood!
You start life as a Paladin that means you've trained for Years to become that Class
You start life as a Monk that means you've trained for Years to become that Class
You start life as a Cleric that means you've spent your formative years in training
You start life as a Wizard you've finished your apprenticeship which probably started before your 10th birthday and are just now stepping out into the World as a Lvl 1 Wizard!
You start life as a Rogue you've spent your formative years on the streets learning.
You start life as a Fighter you've been trained {This one won't have taken anywhere near as long though!}.

Newer Classes like FavSoul, Warlock and Sorceror who were given their powers are exceptions!

I would expect someone who'd started out as a Lvl 1 Fighter, got to Lvl 4 as a Fighter and then said "Hey I want to take a level in Rogue next" to do some training towards that!
And I know a number of 3.5 DMs who'd do the same!

And if you are a Monk or Paladin and your alignment changes from Lawful to non-Lawful, then you will lose many of your class abilities from Monk or Paladin, but you can freely hop into Barbarian or Bard. If any of my players wanted to do something like that, I'd applaud them for going for such an interesting character concept that has such a garbage class synergy instead of just trying to get "moar power!!1!" that you would end up with by choosing pure Druid or something equally min-maxed.

So why did DDO slap alignment restrictions on Paladin, Barb and Bard then if they're not in 3.5?

Because those alignment restrictions make sense!

check out http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Multiclass_Characters for more information on how multiclassing works in D&D 3.x (i.e. stuff after AD&D including 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder).

No thanks - I loathe 3.0 and 3.5 and found Pathfinder only barely playable!

[FranOhmsford]

Not according to AD&D official rules, though Dragon Magazine had a very cool Anti-Paladin adaption that was quite popular back then.

Dragon Magazine actually was Official Rules!

Optional yes but also Official!

Dragon Magazine spells ended up in the Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendium Books!

Made for some interesting conversations with my DMs {No I never played an Anti Paladin - I don't play Evil Characters full stop!}.

Dragon Magazine also gave rules for Paladins of different Non-LG Deities {Not just LE} long before 3rd Ed. came out and I'm sure there's 1000 DMs who had Paladins of multiple alignments through House Rules as well.


I do think it's very silly for DDO to have a blatantly Evil God {Vulkoor} and state that Drow Paladins MUST be Lawful Good! {The Lord of Blades isn't anywhere near as bad!}.
At least state that Drow Paladins must not worship Vulkoor!

[FranOhmsford]

There were benefits for dual classing. It was a trade off. In fact, such rule applications make for the biggest exploits in the Baldur's gate games.

I never got to play her into High Levels but I still adore my Lvl 5 Telekinetic Psionicist with Kinetic Control / Lvl 7 Cleric of Athena!

[FranOhmsford]

In actual pen and paper (where your evil bastard of a DM wouldn't let you shelter your 1st level "rebooted" dual class character during encounters), leveling took so long that it usually wasn't feasible to take a character from 1st level up to level 7-9 and then do that a second time just to be able to start over as a 1st level Bard (while the rest of your party is now stalking the land as deadly 13-15th level characters).

In a computer game, the XP comes fast and easy. I've never had a D&D pen and paper campaign last more than 9 total levels. I'd totally do a dual class in some circumstances for a computer game, but I wouldn't ever consider it for tabletop.

I don't think many people in Groups actually Dual-Classed like that though {Unless the entire Group was Dual-Classing at the same time!}.

What was far more likely to happen was your Character dies and your DM told you to roll up a new one at the lowest level of the Group:
The Player then goes:
"OK so the Group's lowest lvl is 9, I've just rolled right in front of you 17, 15, 13, 16, 17, 12, I'd like to be a Lvl 6 Fighter / 8 Cleric Dual Classed Human please"
And the DM goes:
"Well if he'd multiclassed a Dwarf I'd have had to let him be 8/8, OK fine.".

[the_one_dwarfforged]

How hard is it to come up with a pure build? stupid easy. A great multiclass? much, much more difficult.

how hard is it to copy and paste a great multiclass off the forums?

i also dont think its that hard to come up with a great multiclass that achieves what you want it to. honestly if youve played for a couple years, or maybe less, you should have a really good grasp of how mechanics and builds work in this game. at that point nothing is surprising, nothing is unexpectedly inventive, everything is cookie cutter, and the only new builds are born when the game design changes or new content/loot comes out. the only exception to this besides idiots are people who have only been willing to play pures since they started playing this game. to those people, a good multiclass may seem inspired (assuming they dont look at it as inherently being an abomination) simply because they dont know how to do it themselves.

i also think building an effective pure class is not stupid easy in all cases. look at current barb builds. part of their power is leveraging the stacking of crit buffs from two completely different enhancement trees because of their different bonus types. is that not effectively the same kind of thinking that occurs when multiclassing heroic levels? casters are not stupid easy either. there are a lot of stats to keep track of and build for, and immunities and weaknesses and dcs to remember. and theres a lot of give and take between the various desirable stats because of limited gear slots. its not always stupid easy to decide to be a pure either, when you recognize that advancing your specialization in one area is denying your character the opportunity to add versatility. a pure fighter is probably the simplest build to plan right now, verging on literally being "stupid easy", but is by no means the easiest to play because all fighters bring to the table is dps, meaning that it is harder to play around their weaknesses. so thats not entirely build choices making pures difficult, but i think it matters to the discussion.


basically though, i think this is all a waste of time. the gripe in the op is that 18/20 cores are too strong, and should be balanced to multiclassing better. the issue is that its been correctly pointed out that dps is the only thing that always definitely matters in this game. that means that to make a class worth playing, they need to do useful levels of dps. to make that happen, you need to specialize in doing more dps. and pures are the best at specializing, right? there will never be a good balance between pure and multiclass until rogues and healers are actually needed again, bards provide useful party benefits instead of just being another dps character, not every quest is a hack and slash to the end with mild variation at best, tanks are actually useful in more than just raids (or even useful in raids too...) and actually able to pull and hold aggro, speech skills and other auxiliary skills are worth something. the pendulum has swung and now pures are better than multiclass, only thing to do is to get used to it.

[Axeyu]

how hard is it to copy and paste a great multiclass off the forums?

i also dont think its that hard to come up with a great multiclass that achieves what you want it to. honestly if youve played for a couple years, or maybe less, you should have a really good grasp of how mechanics and builds work in this game. at that point nothing is surprising, nothing is unexpectedly inventive, everything is cookie cutter, and the only new builds are born when the game design changes or new content/loot comes out. the only exception to this besides idiots are people who have only been willing to play pures since they started playing this game. to those people, a good multiclass may seem inspired (assuming they dont look at it as inherently being an abomination) simply because they dont know how to do it themselves.

i also think building an effective pure class is not stupid easy in all cases. look at current barb builds. part of their power is leveraging the stacking of crit buffs from two completely different enhancement trees because of their different bonus types. is that not effectively the same kind of thinking that occurs when multiclassing heroic levels? casters are not stupid easy either. there are a lot of stats to keep track of and build for, and immunities and weaknesses and dcs to remember. and theres a lot of give and take between the various desirable stats because of limited gear slots. its not always stupid easy to decide to be a pure either, when you recognize that advancing your specialization in one area is denying your character the opportunity to add versatility. a pure fighter is probably the simplest build to plan right now, verging on literally being "stupid easy", but is by no means the easiest to play because all fighters bring to the table is dps, meaning that it is harder to play around their weaknesses. so thats not entirely build choices making pures difficult, but i think it matters to the discussion.


basically though, i think this is all a waste of time. the gripe in the op is that 18/20 cores are too strong, and should be balanced to multiclassing better. the issue is that its been correctly pointed out that dps is the only thing that always definitely matters in this game. that means that to make a class worth playing, they need to do useful levels of dps. to make that happen, you need to specialize in doing more dps. and pures are the best at specializing, right? there will never be a good balance between pure and multiclass until rogues and healers are actually needed again, bards provide useful party benefits instead of just being another dps character, not every quest is a hack and slash to the end with mild variation at best, tanks are actually useful in more than just raids (or even useful in raids too...) and actually able to pull and hold aggro, speech skills and other auxiliary skills are worth something. the pendulum has swung and now pures are better than multiclass, only thing to do is to get used to it.

Pures are not always the best at specializing. Specialization is often the goal for a multiclass and pure builds tends to get a little bit of everything. There is no pure build that has gotten a pass that is not very versatile.

Pretty much every challenge you find in making a pure build is significantly increased by multiclassing. A pure build is easy, and it's safe. Even if you somehow manage to mess it up you can just ETR to respec and fix it.
Barbs are not hard to build.
Step 1: Take the by far most powerful capstone
Step 2: Take the by far most powerful Tier 5
Done.

[the_one_dwarfforged]

Pures are not always the best at specializing. Specialization is often the goal for a multiclass and pure builds tends to get a little bit of everything. There is no pure build that has gotten a pass that is not very versatile.

Pretty much every challenge you find in making a pure build is significantly increased by multiclassing. A pure build is easy, and it's safe. Even if you somehow manage to mess it up you can just ETR to respec and fix it.
Barbs are not hard to build.
Step 1: Take the by far most powerful capstone
Step 2: Take the by far most powerful Tier 5
Done.

so what is the determining factor that makes some builds "harder" to build than others? deciding optimal levelling order?

back in the day, monkchers and centered kenseis were not hard to build either.

step 1: slot manyshot and 10k stars / slot keen edge and one with the blade (considered "by far the most powerful" tier 5s of the time)
step 2: always use fury of the wild / always be a bladeforged

in my opinion those builds are just as straightforward as a pure. i think monkcher may be more specialized than say a pure ranger aa, while a centered kensei is definitely more versatile than a pure fighter while retaining the same level of specialization. i do admit its easier to mess up those builds, but that doesnt mean theyre harder to come up with.


anyway, maybe its just me (i really dont think it is, given how many people like to post build after build after build of all sorts), but i dont find multiclassing to not be easy or safe, nor do i find it to be challenging whatsoever. when decided on a heavily mced build like for example a 12/6/2, if an optimal levelling order is that important, you can run it through a build planner as many times as are needed to find the right order. additionally, once you are aware of an effective or powerful synergy, you will always be aware of it and build around it.

id be very interested to hear exactly what is so difficult about designing a multiclass that is effective or at least viable. if we are talking about designing new mc builds that havent been done before, then as i said those pretty much only come out when game mechanics change creating previously nonexistent opportunities. new builds built around new abilities come out en masse very closely behind the release of the information of the new update so clearly these great difficulties and dangers in multiclassing a very easily overcome by most people.

if we are talking about tring a character and deciding to multiclass it on a whim with various random levels of various random classes, yea you can easily mess up a character that way. that doesnt mean multiclassing is overly complicated though, just that the person doing it that way is a dumb***.

you cant fix a pure build with an etr if you realize/decide that it needs levels of another class.

[Axeyu]

so what is the determining factor that makes some builds "harder" to build than others? deciding optimal levelling order?

back in the day, monkchers and centered kenseis were not hard to build either.

step 1: slot manyshot and 10k stars / slot keen edge and one with the blade (considered "by far the most powerful" tier 5s of the time)
step 2: always use fury of the wild / always be a bladeforged

in my opinion those builds are just as straightforward as a pure. i think monkcher may be more specialized than say a pure ranger aa, while a centered kensei is definitely more versatile than a pure fighter while retaining the same level of specialization. i do admit its easier to mess up those builds, but that doesnt mean theyre harder to come up with.


anyway, maybe its just me (i really dont think it is, given how many people like to post build after build after build of all sorts), but i dont find multiclassing to not be easy or safe, nor do i find it to be challenging whatsoever. when decided on a heavily mced build like for example a 12/6/2, if an optimal levelling order is that important, you can run it through a build planner as many times as are needed to find the right order. additionally, once you are aware of an effective or powerful synergy, you will always be aware of it and build around it.

id be very interested to hear exactly what is so difficult about designing a multiclass that is effective or at least viable. if we are talking about designing new mc builds that havent been done before, then as i said those pretty much only come out when game mechanics change creating previously nonexistent opportunities. new builds built around new abilities come out en masse very closely behind the release of the information of the new update so clearly these great difficulties and dangers in multiclassing a very easily overcome by most people.

if we are talking about tring a character and deciding to multiclass it on a whim with various random levels of various random classes, yea you can easily mess up a character that way. that doesnt mean multiclassing is overly complicated though, just that the person doing it that way is a dumb***.

Frankly, I find your post ridiculously biased.
It is extremely obvious that making a pure build is simpler than making a multiclass because a mutliclass gets everything that a pure builds gets with more added to it, a whole different layer to it.
Saying that since people are able to figure out multiclasses and pure builds both are equally easy is just silly.

you cant fix a pure build with an etr if you realize/decide that it needs levels of another class.

Then it's not a pure build anymore, is it? Another logic-defying point.

[Darkmits]

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?

This is the very issue with multiclass vs pure. Let's take it from the top:

What is essentially our target when we enter a quest? To finish it.
How do we finish the quest? By overcoming all the obstacles in it.
- Is there a secondary objective next to finishing the quest? Depends on the player, but the majority would agree that exp/min is important, ie. spending as little time as possible in the quest.

Now the important question:
What obstacles exist in a quest? Monsters, skill checks (spot/search/disable device, diplomacy/bluff/intimidate, etc.) and puzzles

So in essence, we players have as target to be able to overcome these obstacles. Monsters can be generally determined by hit points and average outgoing damage. Puzzles are static; anyone can do them even if they are a first-time player with any class. Skills have their DC.

Since we have a limited budget as a character (ie. not +inf values in everything), we try to make a build that is enough to ensure success in the Monster and Skill Check department. A usual way to build is to first cover your Skill Checks so that you cannot fail them and therefore die or fail the quest, then have enough in self-sustenance department to be able to overcome monster outgoing damage, and what is left to drop in your damage.

This is well until we get to some of the quests that it is not possible to do so on our own. Which means we need to seek help (a party!). ideally again for an organised group, the consensus is that each player will build to be able to overcome a different type of obstacle, also known as "perform their role", and what budget is left from each player is put into damage. So far so good?

Now let's see the following issue. The hardest trap in the game requires X skillpoints to disarm. If a pure Rogue/Artificer who builds for disarming traps reaches that X before d20 (gear, feats, enhancements, skillpoints etc), then the extra skillpoints are pretty much a waste for the specific quest. Therefore our rogue is better off investing them into something else. This "else" is usually damage. So either he'll equip different gear, or do different selection during level-ups while maintaining that 100% chance to disarm the trap. If theorycrafting/experience shows that the optimal solution is to take less levels as a Rogue/Artificer and take up levels from another class, then that is the "logical" thing to do (please note we're talking from a minmax point of view). Hence multiclass > pure in this specific example. But if in this example there is no 100% guarantee that this character can disarm the trap despite every single buff/best gear/etc., then it is still in his interest to be pure to minimise failure chance, hence pure > multiclass.

DDO however doesn't push strictly for minmaxing. DDO isn't designed (and correctly so) by assuming a full group of perfectly minmaxxed characters. All DCs in the game (yes I know, spellcasting DC / spell resistance is an issue still) are designed to be overcome without the need to go for the absolute maximum attainable value. So a player who wants the optimal performance out of his character in a group may need to multiclass. And that's fine, that is the reason why multiclassing is allowed!

But DDO isn't only about the minmaxxers, it's about the regular casual player too. Let's say I play a Barb and I'm playing with 2 friends, one of which plays a Sorc and one who is a FvS. None of us can innately disarm traps. So we either have to suck the damage up, or one of us needs to splash into Rogue or Arti to be able to do so (let's suppose we don't want to use hirelings for the sake of the argument). So the Barb decides to go into Rogue for access to the skill, then has to invest two points every time into Disable Device every level to keep it up. Which means that if I also want to have other skills, I need to have higher base Int. Which means I have to take budget from other primary stats, potentially from CON and STR! So I'm LESS effective than a pure Barb, but I have earned the perk of being able to deal with traps! The difference from a pure Barb depends on the amount of investment I have to do in Disarming. And this is where multiclassing rocks!

Now if in this last example I managed to get a multiclass build that allows me to Disarm traps and at the same time be able to be a better Barbarian with my 20-X levels compared to 20 Barb, then it means that the last X levels of Barbarian are holding the class back from its core function, from its "potential". This is the reason I am supporting the "pure should be best at its designed role, multiclass should be better at versatility" dogma.

But there is also the other example. Both Rogue and Arti can deal with traps. If a player can come up with a build between Rogue/Arti and a 3rd class that manages to be better at trap disarming than either 20Rog or 20Art, and at the same time is better at sneaking than 20Rog and has a better pet than 20Art, then there is something flawed, since it devalues the idea of having the last few levels of Rog and Art.

End of Wall of Text

[redoubt]

This is why we can't have nice things:

https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...epwood-stalker

[Qhualor]

so what is the determining factor that makes some builds "harder" to build than others? deciding optimal levelling order?

back in the day, monkchers and centered kenseis were not hard to build either.

step 1: slot manyshot and 10k stars / slot keen edge and one with the blade (considered "by far the most powerful" tier 5s of the time)
step 2: always use fury of the wild / always be a bladeforged

in my opinion those builds are just as straightforward as a pure. i think monkcher may be more specialized than say a pure ranger aa, while a centered kensei is definitely more versatile than a pure fighter while retaining the same level of specialization. i do admit its easier to mess up those builds, but that doesnt mean theyre harder to come up with.


anyway, maybe its just me (i really dont think it is, given how many people like to post build after build after build of all sorts), but i dont find multiclassing to not be easy or safe, nor do i find it to be challenging whatsoever. when decided on a heavily mced build like for example a 12/6/2, if an optimal levelling order is that important, you can run it through a build planner as many times as are needed to find the right order. additionally, once you are aware of an effective or powerful synergy, you will always be aware of it and build around it.

id be very interested to hear exactly what is so difficult about designing a multiclass that is effective or at least viable. if we are talking about designing new mc builds that havent been done before, then as i said those pretty much only come out when game mechanics change creating previously nonexistent opportunities. new builds built around new abilities come out en masse very closely behind the release of the information of the new update so clearly these great difficulties and dangers in multiclassing a very easily overcome by most people.

if we are talking about tring a character and deciding to multiclass it on a whim with various random levels of various random classes, yea you can easily mess up a character that way. that doesnt mean multiclassing is overly complicated though, just that the person doing it that way is a dumb***.

you cant fix a pure build with an etr if you realize/decide that it needs levels of another class.

this is true. when someone builds a powerful multi class a lot of other players follow that same path. it becomes a standard build, but maybe with a few tweaks if someone else thinks a different enhancement or different race works better. i know it can be difficult to come up with a good multi class that no one else has thought of before, but once its out there it becomes just as much of a standard build as a 41/30 barb pure build. if you look at the build threads, you can see the same players building around the same powerful enhancements, feats, race, gear, etc but with some slight differences. there may be a million ways to build a character, but if you always build around the same powerful synergies than that million possibilities gets cut back considerably.

[HungarianRhapsody]

No thanks - I loathe 3.0 and 3.5 and found Pathfinder only barely playable!

If you despise 3.x so much, then why are you even here in the first place? DDO is based entirely on 3.x.

I mean really, you're coming in here and saying that everything is wrong based on how you think it should be with AD&D rules, but THAT'S NOT THE RULES SET THAT DDO USES.

If you don't like 3.x, that's fine, but please stop saying that things are wrong or bad just because they use the 3.x rules WHEN THAT'S WHAT DDO IS ALL ABOUT.

[FranOhmsford]

If you despise 3.x so much, then why are you even here in the first place? DDO is based entirely on 3.x.

I mean really, you're coming in here and saying that everything is wrong based on how you think it should be with AD&D rules, but THAT'S NOT THE RULES SET THAT DDO USES.

If you don't like 3.x, that's fine, but please stop saying that things are wrong or bad just because they use the 3.x rules WHEN THAT'S WHAT DDO IS ALL ABOUT.

I've explained this many many times - DDO is a Computer Game!

It is NOT PnP!

I loathe 3rd Ed. + PnP!
I love DDO!

There's simply no comparison between the two and that's before you go into all the changes that have had to be made over the years to make DDO work!

[Duskofdead]

Everyone is fine with that.
I'm just not fine with that pure builds should be the most powerful at specific tasks.

You do not think a level 20 wizard should be better at arcane casting than a level 4 wizard / 16 barbarian?

Can you explain how that logic works, exactly? And if it did work as you say, what reason in the world there would be for any pure class to exist?

[relenttless]

In the end it is how you PLAY your toon, irrespective of build.
The only thing I see here is Butthurt because someone's fotm multi got owned in the killcount by a pure.