Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Uska]

Well, I do know that in 1st Ed. a bard had to dual-class from fighter to thief, and then to druid/bard. One of my favorite characters from those days was a bard.

1st Ed bards were awesome and they should have kept doing them that way

[Chai]

This is wrong by my reading of the rules. {2nd Ed. btw}

Once your higher level class reached 1xp away from 2 levels above that was it!
You COULDN'T level that class any further till the lower level class/es got back to the same level!

Now it could have been different in 1st Ed.
1st Ed. was REALLY restrictive at times! While also being BIZARRE at others {Cavalier is a great example!}.

A multiclass character could be 2 or more levels higher in one class IF it was their primary class, without applying an xp penalty. If a 2 or more level difference existed AND none of the classes was the race's primary class, then they applied an xp penalty, but could still have a 2 or more level disparity.

[Qhualor]

Grabbing 2 lvls of rogue for a wizard might give you better find/disable traps plus evasion, but that doesn't mean that the wizard will get everything else that a rogue gets. Rogues offers so much more than just find/disable traps, and it should be worth it going for the capstone if that's what you want. Also, even though a wizard might be better at find/disable traps, they might not survive standing in the middle of a trap and disabling, which is dead easy for a pure rogue.
It's the same for most splashes you take, you'll not enjoy the full flora of abilities and skills that the full class gives you, even though you might surpass the pure class in a certain synergetic attributes.

However, many of the capstones are a bit weak right now. Devs should have done them better during the enhancements pass in order to make pure a good alternative. Some capstones are even more or less worthless, e.g. FVS.

That's not the point I'm making. 2 levels of rogue gets the trapping for a wizard. The wizard doesn't need sneak attack damage or the rogue specific granted feats like Crippling Strike. The wizard can still have high caster dps. The only problem I have with this is when the rogue splashed wizard is capable of being a better trapper than a pure rogue. That is the point I am making. Splashing levels of a class to gain powerful versatility and boosting class specific attributes from other classes to make a stronger build than the pure class.

[Qhualor]

They have trained just as long, just in different ways. The problem is that you are defining Ranger as "doing bow damage" and rogue as "trapping".


Its not the 6 levels of ranger that makes a build better at bow damage than a pure ranger, its the 14 other levels aswell.


Why should versarility be the only advantage? Its not like the pure classes always are specialized. A paladin for example is a well rounded class. It makes perfect sense that a paladin can take ranger levels to excell at TWF.

I was using specific examples, not pigeonholing those classes. Would it be better if used sneak attack and Evasion for rogue and 2WF free feats from ranger?

Exactly the point I'm making. It doesn't always just take 2/6/12 levels to make a multi class more powerful than a pure. It can take another 2/6/12 levels. Or it can be taking the first 14 levels of a class, deemed not worth taking the rest of the levels so instead taking 6 levels of another class to gain higher power than a pure. That should say something about the pure class.

Versatility is not the only advantage to multi class. It's also done for more power. The Paladin taking 6 levels of ranger is doing it for more power in 2WF and the other 6 levels doesn't support it enough to be equivalent or higher power. Doesnt make sense that the Paladin is better at 2WF than the pure Tempest.

[Axeyu]

I was using specific examples, not pigeonholing those classes. Would it be better if used sneak attack and Evasion for rogue and 2WF free feats from ranger?

Exactly the point I'm making. It doesn't always just take 2/6/12 levels to make a multi class more powerful than a pure. It can take another 2/6/12 levels. Or it can be taking the first 14 levels of a class, deemed not worth taking the rest of the levels so instead taking 6 levels of another class to gain higher power than a pure. That should say something about the pure class.

Versatility is not the only advantage to multi class. It's also done for more power. The Paladin taking 6 levels of ranger is doing it for more power in 2WF and the other 6 levels doesn't support it enough to be equivalent or higher power. Doesnt make sense that the Paladin is better at 2WF than the pure Tempest.

You are still defining classes as specific powers. Just because taking levels of another class makes you more powerful at some specific task does not mean there is no merit to the pure class.

You have also ignored all the game design reasons.

[Axeyu]

That's not the point I'm making. 2 levels of rogue gets the trapping for a wizard. The wizard doesn't need sneak attack damage or the rogue specific granted feats like Crippling Strike. The wizard can still have high caster dps. The only problem I have with this is when the rogue splashed wizard is capable of being a better trapper than a pure rogue. That is the point I am making. Splashing levels of a class to gain powerful versatility and boosting class specific attributes from other classes to make a stronger build than the pure class.

Trapping are skills, they are not class specific. The wizard is spending more skill points and have a higher int so it makes perfect sense.

[Jeromio]

That's not the point I'm making. 2 levels of rogue gets the trapping for a wizard. The wizard doesn't need sneak attack damage or the rogue specific granted feats like Crippling Strike. The wizard can still have high caster dps. The only problem I have with this is when the rogue splashed wizard is capable of being a better trapper than a pure rogue. That is the point I am making. Splashing levels of a class to gain powerful versatility and boosting class specific attributes from other classes to make a stronger build than the pure class.

I think it makes perfect sense. If you look at a thing like this from a RP perspective, Mr Anderson with extreme super duper ultra-high intelligence who has basic knowledge/experience about traps might actually have a better understanding and be better at finding/disabling traps than average int Joe with medium intelligence who's been tinkering with traps during his whole career.
It would only be the finding/disabling part that Anderson would be better at than Joe, and those two skills alone are not the only thing that defines a rogue or make him an excellent trapster. For some difficult traps, you'd still need Joe for his other rogue abilities as Anderson would most probably die trying to disarm.

[FranOhmsford]

Methinks Fran must have had the grand-daddy of all munchkin DMs.

Did I say my DM/s allowed 20/21/22 or anything similar?

NO!

I simply showed hwo the RULES would have allowed it! {As you have also done!}.


Oh I did play "Munchkin" once {the actual game} at an Event and couldn't stand it!

Interesting that your definition of "proper" multi-classing involves ignoring the rules on multi-classing ...

Really? How am I ignoring the rules on multi-classing?

The game changes over time {No I'm still not happy about the massive changes WoTC made!} and we have a bunch of Classes in DDO that weren't even heard of in 2nd End.
The Races have changed too and in some ways those basic rules were: 1) Vague, 2) Inflexible and 3) Nonsenisical even back then! {That's why I specifically followed the Complete Handbooks, Used Kits and yes like many people completely ignored the max level rules for Demi-Humans {well would have if I'd ever played a character that came anywhere near them!}.

DDO is Not PnP and should not be exactly like PnP in every way - Changes have to be made to fit!
Now considering DDO was originally based on 3.5 I'm simply pointing out how the earlier editions can provide a benefit to DDO {with changes to fit!}.

[Deadlock]

Trapping are skills, they are not class specific. The wizard is spending more skill points and have a higher int so it makes perfect sense.

That's an important point to emphasise. It costs a rogue splashed wizard more in terms of skill points to max out their search and disable skills. Whether a wizard has significantly more INT than a rogue is down to individual build choice.

A multi-class losing access to capstone abiities is a trade-off that I'm entirely comfortable with. It allows us to have character defining attributes as capstones. Those who really think that the core ability at 18 and capstone ability at 20 are ridiculously overpowered might have more success in arguing for their cost be increased than them being nerfed or just not existing in the first place.

I do get the feeling that those arguing against meaningful capstones either haven't been around long enough, have forgotten or simply refuse to acknowledge the dominance that multi-classes have enjoyed during the years when capstones were complete garbage and not worth having.

[FranOhmsford]

I was using specific examples, not pigeonholing those classes. Would it be better if used sneak attack and Evasion for rogue and 2WF free feats from ranger?

Exactly the point I'm making. It doesn't always just take 2/6/12 levels to make a multi class more powerful than a pure. It can take another 2/6/12 levels. Or it can be taking the first 14 levels of a class, deemed not worth taking the rest of the levels so instead taking 6 levels of another class to gain higher power than a pure. That should say something about the pure class.

Versatility is not the only advantage to multi class. It's also done for more power. The Paladin taking 6 levels of ranger is doing it for more power in 2WF and the other 6 levels doesn't support it enough to be equivalent or higher power. Doesnt make sense that the Paladin is better at 2WF than the pure Tempest.

Paladin/Ranger - A Personal Bugbear of mine!

6 Levels of Ranger gets you:
- 2 Fvd Enemies
- Bow Strength
- Rapid Shot
- Two Weapon Fighting
- Diehard
- Precise Shot
- Manyshot {If you've already taken PBS with a standard Feat}
- Improved TWF

6 Levels of Fighter gets you:
- 4 Feats

So ignore Diehard as it's a useless feat anyway
Ignore Precise Shot as you're going for a TWF Build
You're likely a Dex Build anyway so you can ignore Bow Strength.

Use your 4 Fighter Feats to get TWF, ITWF and if you really want to keep some of that Bow damage - Rapid Shot and Manyshot {Again you've got to take PBS with a standard Feat}.
And a couple AP spent in Kensai will give you the equivalent of those two Fvd Enemies against ALL mobs!

IF You're going for a Bow build just swap in Precise Shot for ITWF.


So really the entire benefit of Ranger Levels for a TWF Paladin is based on Tempest {A tree that in PnP isn't even Ranger Specific!}....You could say the same for AA and Bow Builds.

So.....Why exactly would you take 5/6 Ranger Levels on a Paladin when you have KotC and can use the same amount of Fighter Levels to gain the couple extra Feats needed?

[Coyopa]

Did I say my DM/s allowed 20/21/22 or anything similar?

NO!

Yes, you specifically said you were upset when you started playing DDO because you "couldn't do a 'proper' multi-classed" 20/20/20 fighter/thief/mage.
https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...=1#post5690758
Try to avoid the revisionist history, mmmmmkay?

Really? How am I ignoring the rules on multi-classing?

See below.

completely ignored the max level rules for Demi-Humans {well would have if I'd ever played a character that came anywhere near them!}.

This means you ignored the fact that humans could only have two classes.

I'm simply pointing out how the earlier editions can provide a benefit to DDO {with changes to fit!}.

Except the changes you're suggesting don't fit. At all.

[Coyopa]

Paladin/Ranger - A Personal Bugbear of mine!

6 Levels of Ranger gets you:
- 2 Fvd Enemies
- Bow Strength
- Rapid Shot
- Two Weapon Fighting
- Diehard
- Precise Shot
- Manyshot {If you've already taken PBS with a standard Feat}
- Improved TWF

6 Levels of Fighter gets you:
- 4 Feats

So ignore Diehard as it's a useless feat anyway
Ignore Precise Shot as you're going for a TWF Build
You're likely a Dex Build anyway so you can ignore Bow Strength.

Use your 4 Fighter Feats to get TWF, ITWF and if you really want to keep some of that Bow damage - Rapid Shot and Manyshot {Again you've got to take PBS with a standard Feat}.
And a couple AP spent in Kensai will give you the equivalent of those two Fvd Enemies against ALL mobs!

IF You're going for a Bow build just swap in Precise Shot for ITWF.


So really the entire benefit of Ranger Levels for a TWF Paladin is based on Tempest {A tree that in PnP isn't even Ranger Specific!}....You could say the same for AA and Bow Builds.

So.....Why exactly would you take 5/6 Ranger Levels on a Paladin when you have KotC and can use the same amount of Fighter Levels to gain the couple extra Feats needed?

Actually, the bolded part is wrong. From the wiki: "A Ranger receives this feat for free at level 6, even if the prerequisites are not met." I know from experience that you don't have to take Point Blank Shot to get Manyshot at Ranger level 6. Paladin/Ranger is a nice combination if you're going for a Silver Flame bow user. Even without Holy Sword, you could get some nice DPS out of such a combination.

[Qhualor]

I think it makes perfect sense. If you look at a thing like this from a RP perspective, Mr Anderson with extreme super duper ultra-high intelligence who has basic knowledge/experience about traps might actually have a better understanding and be better at finding/disabling traps than average int Joe with medium intelligence who's been tinkering with traps during his whole career.
It would only be the finding/disabling part that Anderson would be better at than Joe, and those two skills alone are not the only thing that defines a rogue or make him an excellent trapster. For some difficult traps, you'd still need Joe for his other rogue abilities as Anderson would most probably die trying to disarm.

If it makes sense, than in DDO nobody would play a pure. If you can make a more powerful build than a pure by multi classing, than where is the incentive to go pure? RP is a fun conversation to have around a table, but not behind a computer in a live action game with extremely loose rules.

[Axeyu]

I do get the feeling that those arguing against meaningful capstones either haven't been around long enough, have forgotten or simply refuse to acknowledge the dominance that multi-classes have enjoyed during the years when capstones were complete garbage and not worth having.

Or we just think the game is better when there are a vast number of different builds instead of pretty much only 20 or 18/2.

[Qhualor]

Trapping are skills, they are not class specific. The wizard is spending more skill points and have a higher int so it makes perfect sense.

Trapping are skills, but in order to be able to trap you need arty or rogue levels. It is a class specific skill so no, other classes that take trapper levels should not be a better trapper than the pure rogue.

[Axeyu]

If it makes sense, than in DDO nobody would play a pure. If you can make a more powerful build than a pure by multi classing, than where is the incentive to go pure? RP is a fun conversation to have around a table, but not behind a computer in a live action game with extremely loose rules.

"Only multiclasses" is a far better situation than "only pures". The reasons why have been repeated many times already.

[walkin_dude]

Or we just think the game is better when there are a vast number of different builds instead of pretty much only 20 or 18/2.

The way I assess it, there are more fun and viable builds possible now than was the case when I first joined DDO in early 2011. You can do some very cool things by multi-classing, and you can also do pure classes, which wasn't so much the case back then.

[walkin_dude]

"Only multiclasses" is a far better situation than "only pures". The reasons why have been repeated many times already.

Well, there it is, isn't it? Why does it have to be "only" anything? If the goal is more possibilities and more choices, then the clear winner should be "both".

[Qhualor]

You are still defining classes as specific powers. Just because taking levels of another class makes you more powerful at some specific task does not mean there is no merit to the pure class.

You have also ignored all the game design reasons.

Why do you multi class? Do you do it for more power? More versatility? Both? Every class has or should have a defining power. The reason why players multiclass is to gain some of that versatility that another class is powerful in.

Fighter- tactical genious

Barbarian- raw dps

Rogue- sneak attack and trapping genius



I didn't say there is no merit to a pure class and have not suggested so or vice versa.

[Axeyu]

Trapping are skills, but in order to be able to trap you need arty or rogue levels. It is a class specific skill so no, other classes that take trapper levels should not be a better trapper than the pure rogue.

How good you are at trapping is determined by your skill level. Your skill level is not a function of your rogue level.