Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Coyopa]

Which is why the original Devs should have considered what wouldn't translate when they created DDO!
Blatant Example: AC - The original Devs failed to account for level advances over time

What? You're expecting omniscience from human computer programmers? Users like you are the reason we hate users. "What? You failed to see 7 years into the future when designing the AC system? LOSERS!!!!!!!."

[Qhualor]

Please inform me on how hard it is to create a pure with even the most marginal of understanding of the game. It would take a lot of effort to fail at that to the point of almost trying to.

Second, possibly, it completely depends on how you build. Want to talk about blanket statements..... Further, once again... look at the recent passes. 9/10 of those are most certainly not multiclass builds, most are playing pure or mostly pure (unless they are pally mutting with holy sword.... which is a separate issue). The point I think Turbine screwed up at is front loading the trees SO much, rather than a much, much more even distribution. As for tough choices, If you make the 18/20 core so powerful as they are doing currently, you no longer need to make any choices whatsoever, go pure. For the classes with extremely weak capstones they are all, surprise surprise, the ones that have not received a pass yet.

for your third point, yes this is true, and is true for many a class.

part of the problem is that you have these "forum mathematicians" that put together a build and say that this is the new OP build to play. now the other players who don't know "forum math" that well say ok ill play that and it becomes the standard build that "everybody" plays. im not saying that these builds aren't powerful, but I remember one poster talking about how players were going to take advantage of the barb heal amp right before the barb pass. the next new OP build was going to be some variation of Swashbuckler and Ravager. how many of these are running around? what pure classes do we see running around more often? barb, paladin and rogue. why?

1.because 41/30 Blood Strength

2. because high saves, damage mitigation, healing, Holy Sword and they aren't just high damage vs undead and evil

3. Mechanic. mobs dead before other players can even reach them

there are still plenty of splash/multi class builds out there beyond the Iconic 1st level requirement just for a past life. monk, rogue, fighter, ranger and paladin are still common. most of these is because of a specific powerful build that these "forum mathematicians" put together that grew to popularity. the other reason is because of the low hanging fruit like saves, trapping and feats. the sad part is these multi class builds can be more powerful than pure and, imo, if that doesn't make sense than it should at least sound wrong. I have nothing against multi classing, but it should be a hard choice to decide on being more versatile being good at a variety of things or the best at one area while still being decent in other areas.

[Gremmlynn]

Wow.

I disagree with so much I am not even sure where to begin...

First, I disagree with the OP that it takes ZERO effort/skill/whatever to make a good pure build. That's just a blanket statement that is not only false but insulting. Certainly not winning over folks with that attitude.

Second, I disagree with cores being weaker. A pure build is a specialist, a multiclass is a jack of all trades. As it stands 9/10 times a multi class is more powerful due to low hanging fruit (Evasion, Cha bonus to saves, Trapping, etc, etc. ). No need to weaken cores at all. Right now some of them make a good and tough choice to make and that's a good thing. I want more tough choices to be made to encourage deeper thought into character creation/development and to promote a wider population of character builds. Some higher cores should be buffed!

Third, I disagree that Rogue is invalidated just because a multi can do the traps. Seriously? Do you know what else the Rogue class has going for it?

Meh, let's just start there...

Actually it is even worse than having varied skills. A multi-class of similar class types can stack the same sorts of low hanging fruit to be better at what those classes are than a pure of either class. For example fighter12/barb6/cleric2 melee build stacking power surge with rage with divine might to have more power than a pure fighter or barb could get with no real trade offs without very good 18 cores and capstones to balance that.

[Gremmlynn]

Obviously I'm not talking Red Box or Blue Box here - Those sets were before I was born {Well I think they were...If not I was barely a toddler.}. And I don't think anyone would go back to when Elf was a Class anyway?

The DMG/PHB only gave XP totals for Lvls 1-20 but we all know players went much higher - Heck when 2nd Ed. Came out Elminster was Lvl 27! {Ed Greenwood played D&D!}, Gygax's own Group's characters were way above Lvl 20!

Dual-Classing did NOT signify two classes!
Multi-Classing did NOT signify three+classes!
These were titles given to two different systems - One for Humans and One for Non-Humans.
A Multiclassed character COULD have just two classes and in fact COULDN'T have any more than 3!
A Dual Classed Human COULD have more than two classes - It was just highly unlikely!

A Human could by the rules be Dual-Classed 7 times! {Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Bard}
The restriction was that you'd have to STOP levelling one Class until you had overtook it in the next Class.
So yes 20/20 was certainly possible {at least for one level and you wouldn't be able to use the abilities of the 1st Class at that point}, However 20/20/20 wasn't {It would have to be 20/21/20 and you'd still need to earn two more levels before you'd be able to use the abilities of the first two classes.

Multiclassing was much more restricted Humans couldn't do it Full Stop! And Demi-Humans/Humanoids already had massive restrictions on maximum allowed levels of each class.
An Elf could if I remember correctly go to Lvl 15 as a Wizard but only Lvl 12 as a Fighter YET Multiclassing required each Class to be within one level of the others so a Dual-Classed Elf could never go higher than Lvl 12 Fighter/13 Wizard {If the levels are wrong then fine - The point stands.}...Add a 3rd Class and it gets worse because most Classes had even heavier maximum level restrictions.
BUT
I don't believe a single GM who wanted to have his players run High Level Campaigns took ANY notice of the maximum level restrictions for Demi-Humans anyway! {By 2nd Ed. Those rules were a relic!

Oh and I believe {though I could be wrong here} that Half Elves had ZERO maximum level restrictions.
So 20 Fighter /20 Mage /20 Thief was possible at least for a Half Elf.


XP Requirements were absolutely monstrous for Multi-Classed Characters - You had to earn the TOTAL XP required by all three classes to Level just one level if you treated the classes as one like many did.
Or you had to hold back on levelling one class {say Rogue} with a lower XP requirement per level because the other Class {say Wizard} was lagging behind.

Huh what?

Multi-class characters did not have to be within one level of each other, though if a character reached their racial maximum in one or more classes they still had to apply equal experience towards it with any classes still able to level (so your elf fighter mage could cap both classes, but when fighter reached the level cap they still had to divide their experience by two, with the fighter half basically being wasted).

Half-elves did have limitations for most classes (in 1e bard, druid and thief were exceptions, while every other race but half-orc was unlimited as a thief, half-orcs were unlimited as an assassin).

Also, I'm not going by memory here, I still have the 1st and 2nd edition books sitting on the shelf next to my computer.

[FranOhmsford]

Actually it is even worse than having varied skills. A multi-class of similar class types can stack the same sorts of low hanging fruit to be better at what those classes are than a pure of either class. For example fighter12/barb6/cleric2 melee build stacking power surge with rage with divine might to have more power than a pure fighter or barb could get with no real trade offs without very good 18 cores and capstones to balance that.

That build with Ravager Tier 5 probably has better self-healing than a Pure Cleric {and a tonne more self sufficiency!} too!

[Gremmlynn]

Ok, I was playing DnD PnP when the Red Box hit the shelf and with Advanced DnD. By definition Dual means Two (But you can argue that with Webster). A Human at most could have only two classes. Early rules a character could not use "Class" skills if the classes were not the same level.

The importance of the Red Box information was the fact that demiraces were considered to be multiple classes as their leveling gave them specific abilities. At that time the only race that could be a single class was Human. Which is why when it translated later to Advanced and 2nd Edition there were the leveling limits because these races by nature had abilities associated with these classes.

3.0 and on removed these level restrictions but maintained the favored class concept which removed the XP penalty associated with having multiple classes with wider then a 2 level range. Example was the Elf with wizard levels.

You are right that in early rules the sum of the XP needed to level was needed to go from one level to the next. But a Human could only be two Classes. Again House rules could have changed the limits, but I doubt you would have found what you are saying is possible during any of the official rules.

In second edition, at least, it explicitly states that a human can do that as many times as it chose, but had to meet the stat requirements, which were pretty high (17 in the class one was going to and 15 in the class they were leaving for all primary ability scores).

[FranOhmsford]

Huh what?

Multi-class characters did not have to be within one level of each other, though if a character reached their racial maximum in one or more classes they still had to apply equal experience towards it with any classes still able to level (so your elf fighter mage could cap both classes, but when fighter reached the level cap they still had to divide their experience by two, with the fighter half basically being wasted).

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!}.

Half-elves did have limitations for most classes (in 1e bard, druid and thief were exceptions, while every other race but half-orc was unlimited as a thief, half-orcs were unlimited as an assassin).

Also, I'm not going by memory here, I still have the 1st and 2nd edition books sitting on the shelf next to my computer.

So by your own standards YES Half Elves could indeed be a 20/20 Multiclassed Bard/Rogue once the game got past that phase where you had to jump through hoops just to become a Bard in the first place!
I don't think 1st Ed. ever allowed Druids to multiclass. 2nd Ed. certainly didn't. That's a 3rd Ed. + rule change!

[FranOhmsford]

In second edition, at least, it explicitly states that a human can do that as many times as it chose, but had to meet the stat requirements, which were pretty high (17 in the class one was going to and 15 in the class they were leaving for all primary ability scores).

Thank you for actually looking that up!

Yes the stat requirements were high but we've all seen the guy who rolled straight no stat under 16 even with the whole table watching the rolls!

[Gremmlynn]

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!}.



So by your own standards YES Half Elves could indeed be a 20/20 Multiclassed Bard/Rogue once the game got past that phase where you had to jump through hoops just to become a Bard in the first place!
I don't think 1st Ed. ever allowed Druids to multiclass. 2nd Ed. certainly didn't. That's a 3rd Ed. + rule change!

I just read the entire section on multi-classing. It says nothing about being within one level of all other classes. It also explicitly gives half-elf the options for both fighter/druid and ranger/cleric (1e only gives the cleric/ranger option), it gives no option for bards being multi-class though. 1e style bards, which are vastly different than 2e, had to be thieves (as well as fighters) to be bards, but couldn't be 20/20 as they had to become bards before they reached level 8 fighter and level 9 thief. While paladins (and 1e monks) couldn't multi-class in either edition, mostly because they could only be humans who weren't allowed to multi-class.

[Uska]

In second edition, at least, it explicitly states that a human can do that as many times as it chose, but had to meet the stat requirements, which were pretty high (17 in the class one was going to and 15 in the class they were leaving for all primary ability scores).

NO it doesnt and if I had access to my dragons on disk I could find the sage advice article by EGG where he said dual class means exatly that.

Both my 2nd ed book and my disks are 3k miles away so cant pull them out.

Your right on the stats but it doesnt say you can do it as many times as you wish.

how about you scan the page in so we can see the actual page not a like to a wiki which would be worthless

[Gremmlynn]

NO it doesnt and if I had access to my dragons on disk I could find the sage advice article by EGG where he said dual class means exatly that.

Both my 2nd ed book and my disks are 3k miles away so cant pull them out.

Your right on the stats but it doesnt say you can do it as many times as you wish.

how about you scan the page in so we can see the actual page not a like to a wiki which would be worthless

Well that would require me to have a scanner I neither have, nor have a real need for.
But, page 45 of the 2e PHB, last sentence of the first paragraph on dual-class characters:

"There is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire as long as he has the ability scores and wants to make the change (Certain character classes have alignment restrictions the characters has to meet, however)."

I actually wasn't sure about that myself until I looked it up tonight. But that's what it says, verbatim.

[Uska]

Well that would require me to have a scanner I neither have, nor have a real need for.
But, page 45 of the 2e PHB, last sentence of the first paragraph on dual-class characters:

"There is no limit to the number of classes a character can acquire as long as he has the ability scores and wants to make the change (Certain character classes have alignment restrictions the characters has to meet, however)."

I actually wasn't sure about that myself until I looked it up tonight. But that's what it says, verbatim.

No it doesnt I am looking at a pdf of it right now and it says TWO but there are no restrictions on which two.

Multi-Class and Dual-Class Characters
A multi-class character improves in two or more classes simultaneously. His experience
is divided equally between each class. The available class combinations vary according to
race. The character can use the abilities of both classes at any time, with only a few
restrictions. Only demihumans can be multi-class characters.
A dual-class character is one who starts with a single class, advances to moderate level,
and then changes to a second character class and starts over again. The character retains
the benefits and abilities of the first class but never again earns experience for using
them. There are some limitations on combining the abilities of the two classes but, as
long as minimum ability and alignment requirements are met, there are no restrictions on
the possible character class combinations. Only humans can be dual-class characters.
Multi-Class

copied right out of the PDF

Ok I was wrong found it further but each time you have to reach a higher level in the next class

doesnt matter since we are 3.x dont know why fram always tries to use 2nd for his arguement in ddo.

I applogize its been a very long time since I played 2nd ed and nobody I ever knew ever dual classed

[Gremmlynn]

No it doesnt I am looking at a pdf of it right now and it says TWO but there are no restrictions on which two.

Multi-Class and Dual-Class Characters
A multi-class character improves in two or more classes simultaneously. His experience
is divided equally between each class. The available class combinations vary according to
race. The character can use the abilities of both classes at any time, with only a few
restrictions. Only demihumans can be multi-class characters.
A dual-class character is one who starts with a single class, advances to moderate level,
and then changes to a second character class and starts over again. The character retains
the benefits and abilities of the first class but never again earns experience for using
them. There are some limitations on combining the abilities of the two classes but, as
long as minimum ability and alignment requirements are met, there are no restrictions on
the possible character class combinations. Only humans can be dual-class characters.
Multi-Class

copied right out of the PDF

That isn't what my hard copy book says, which is what I have to go by.

Though, frankly, I really don't care one way or the other. I just looked it up to settle a dispute. It seems even various sources don't agree, not that it really matters as house rules tent to trump anything written as they are what are actually used in any particular campaign.

[FranOhmsford]

I just read the entire section on multi-classing. It says nothing about being within one level of all other classes. It also explicitly gives half-elf the options for both fighter/druid and ranger/cleric (1e only gives the cleric/ranger option), it gives no option for bards being multi-class though. 1e style bards, which are vastly different than 2e, had to be thieves (as well as fighters) to be bards, but couldn't be 20/20 as they had to become bards before they reached level 8 fighter and level 9 thief. While paladins (and 1e monks) couldn't multi-class in either edition, mostly because they could only be humans who weren't allowed to multi-class.

I'm sure I've read it somewhere {obviously not in the PHB and I've just been through the DMG {which surprisingly says absolutely nothing about Multi or Dual Classing}....I suppose it is possible that it was simply a House Rule of my first Group which got stuck in my head {Honestly after that group dissolved every multiclassed character I've ever created has totalled the two XP counts together and levelled both at the same time - Another way of dealing with Multiclassing that removes any worries about one Class being ahead of the other.}.

As for Druid - There's a * next to Fighter/Cleric on the H-Elf part of the table {I'm a great one for missing *s },
BUT
Again that's H-Elf - H-Elves could literally mutliclass anything except for Specialist Wizards and Paladins {They're not only the ONLY Race that can multiclass Druid but they're the ONLY race that can multiclass Ranger too!}.
I am surprised that Bard isn't on there - The great Jack of all Trades not being allowed to Multiclass seems like an incredible oversight rather than an explicit desire on the part of the good people at TSR {Or it could be a legacy of those ludicrous 1st Ed. rules on Bards}.
- The PHBR7 The Complete Bards Handbook specifically goes back and adds in a whole list of Demi-Human Bard Multiclasses {Bard Kit in Brackets}:
Dwarf - Fighter Bard {Skald}
Elf - Wizard/Bard {Minstrel} & Thief/Bard {Gypsy}
Gnome - Illusionist/Bard {Professor} & Thief/Bard {Professor or Jongleur}
H-Elf - Loads of em!
Halfling - Thief/Bard {Jongleur}

Lastly - The PHB does NOT say Paladins couldn't multiclass because only Humans could become Paladins - That is you're taking those two separate things and conflating them
- Demi Human Paladins were quickly allowed in the later Complete Paladins Handbook {for some reason my copy of which does not include a PHB#}...Which KEPT the No Multiclassing Rule!
- Dual Classed Human Paladins were allowed BUT that Did NOT include Fighter, {Ranger, Barbarian - Both counted under other Warrior Classes} Rogue, Wizard {Which would also disqualify Sorceror if that Class had existed back then}, Bard {disqualified through the ruling that Bards HAD to be of Neutral alignments...So no LG} OR Druid {Disqualified through even stricter alignment restriction of ONLY being able to be TN}....It goes on to state that in most cases Cleric is the only viable option!
It does allow other Classes to Dual Class into Paladins later on IF they were Lawful Good but again has an absolute No-No on other Warrior Classes {Fighters/Rangers/Barbs} becoming Paladins!

Seems a strange thing to not allow Fighters to become Paladins later in life while allowing Clerics, Bards, Wizards and Rogues to do so {so long as they were Lawful Good} but I suppose that stems from 2nd Ed's rules about not multiclassing within the same Class Tree {Seems even stranger that this bled over into Dual-Classed Human characters}.




As I think I've stated multiple times: Many of the rules even in older editions of D&D were nonsensical and there were a lot of places where House Rules took over from the very basic rules in the PHB/DMG.
The Complete Handbook sets are in my view invaluable in clarifying a lot of these!

Allowing Druids to multiclass with Fighter is actually NOT one of those rules - Fighter could multiclass with anything other than Ranger, Barb, Paladin {Which were all variations on Fighter in the first place!} and Specialist Wizard {Which couldn't multiclass with anything unless you were a Gnome Illusionist!}.
Which is why in my Multiclass options list earlier in this post I included Fighter as one of the Classes I have no problem with being allowed to multiclass with Druid {the other two being Barb and Ranger which are even better options Lore-wise for multiclassing with Druid in my view}.


I haven't changed my mind about Fighter/Paladin or Fighter/Ranger or Fighter/Barb - I still feel that those should be valid multiclass options.
I even find Barb/Ranger to be a Lore specific exception!
My feelings are heavily based on Lore than Law and I don't agree with Paladin/Ranger or Paladin/Barb {which thankfully isn't possible anyway} for that reason alone!

[FranOhmsford]

NO it doesnt and if I had access to my dragons on disk I could find the sage advice article by EGG where he said dual class means exatly that.

Both my 2nd ed book and my disks are 3k miles away so cant pull them out.

Your right on the stats but it doesnt say you can do it as many times as you wish.

how about you scan the page in so we can see the actual page not a like to a wiki which would be worthless

Wow - You've stated many times that you ONLY use the PHB/DMG!

And now you pull the "Sage advice" Card? {That's from Dragon Magazine!}.

Now I read Dragon religiously for about 6 years!
It did a lot to clarify rules and add new optional rules.
But I wouldn't consider it a Bible for D&D!


The PHB does in fact state EXACTLY what Gremlynn wrote!

As for scanning the page in - I lost all my PDFs when my laptop decided to reset for no reason AND I don't have a Scanner!


Actually it's possible I also read that 1xp short rule in Dragon Magazine as I can't find it anywhere else {and though my Dragons are still sitting in my Drawers I'm not going through them to find it!}.

[Vorthian]

A lot of opinions floating about this thread, with "should" being used in so very many posts. I wonder what many of these posts would look like if it was removed from them.

At the highest level of play DDO is currently about damage output and incoming damage mitigation. The rest, while sometimes cool and interesting, is largely superfluous to completing quests. I suspect the basis for any enhancement changes Turbine will be making is to ensure pure and multi-class builds affected meet the new balance they introduced with the last few enhancement update passes. Barbarians, Paladins, Bards and Warlocks are the flavor of the day because of these changes, and future updates will likely bring classes into line with their damage output and damage mitigation. I suggest they are releasing the AA update last because they are keenly aware of the impact it will have on monkchers, and do not want them to fall too far above or below current top-tier end-game builds.

Perhaps at a later date, after damage output and damage mitigation changes are completed, they will revisit other aspects of character builds, and at that time introduce quests which better utilize non-combat aspects of our builds. That time does not appear to be now however.

[Axeyu]

Disagree. A pure class should be stronger than a multi class because they have trained in that class all their "life". A multi class should be more versatile than a pure, but if everything is low hanging fruit making them more powerful than a pure than there is something wrong with the design. It doesn't make sense a 18 whatever/2 rogue should be better at trapping than a pure rogue. It doesn't make sense that a 12 monk/6 ranger/2 whatever should be more powerful at bow damage than a level 20 AA. What we don't have enough of in this game is tough decisions and sacrifice with multi classing. The biggest problem I see right now is too much jack of all trades builds with no real sacrifice and cookie cutter pure builds. Makes the game bland.

I could not disagree more. It doesn't make any sense what-so-ever that "a pure class should be stronger than a multi class because they have trained in that class all their "life"". It's not like during the "multiclass years" of his life the multiclass build was just slacking at home.
You are defining class power extremly narrow, and also incorrect. You are looking at it backwards.
Being good at trapping does not come from being a rogue, it comes from the trap skills.
If a ranger that has learned the basics of archery decides to become a monk to learn advanced archery techniques it makes perfect sense that he should atleast be able to compete with a pure ranger. To me it makes sense that he should be able to beat a pure ranger in archery since he has focused on it instead of just training as a ranger in general.

But that is just the flavour/lore/realism part, the game mechanic argument weighs more. If multiclassing is a fringe for "versatile jacks of all trade" then multiclassing is pretty much dead. The pure classes are already versatile, so if they are also strongest at any specific task then why would you ever multiclass? And if there is no significant multiclassing the game loses 90% of its character customization. Multiclassing is the only thing that makes DDOs character customization really stand out compared to other games. In periods where multiclassing has thrived we have had a near endless amount of builds being played. Every day you could see a new variation. That is just not happening when the pure meta is dominant. People just play the same no-brainer characters. Yes, making a pure build requires very little thought, and if you happen to mess up you can just respec when you do an ETR.

[IronClan]

"pure should be best" why?

First off there are specialties or graduations or degrees of roles or abilities that "classes" don't cover, there are also flavor archetypes that the classes don't cover... the original impetus to multiclass was to blend two classes into something that more covers BOTH the utility and the flavor aspects of some Fantasy heroic archetype or someones personal "character they dreamed up". Pure Classes are often too rigid to do a good job of expressing those ideas, utilities and flavors.

Let me point out an example: the classic mythology and 80's pop culture mixture Ninja Assassin you can't be an assassin without Rogue levels in DDO so multiclassing is required for a ninja assassin...however the game has Assassin so tightly pigeonholed into pure 20 Rogue only that even 6 levels of monk severely gimp the DC's and result in a mostly flavor character that can't really serve the archetype or allow someone to create what DDO doesn't already have.

I would hope that any reasonable person would view this as a shortcoming of the game, too rigidly defining assassin. I view it that way. As a DM I would relax the assassinate DC formula to Half rogue levels with a higher base DC thus taking a loss of 6 DC down to say a loss of 3 DC (rework these numbers however you want to for balance this is just an example) allowing someone to create a Ninja Assassin if they wanted that was losing some assassinate specialty but not so much that it plays lousy.

Sadly mixed into this conversation irrevocably is the arbitrary "I think multiclass is nearly cheating" aspect that some people for whatever reason feel, and usually express as sentiments like "pure should always be best" without any reasoning to go with it.

Why? Why should it be best? Because you say so? Are you doing something creative by going pure? Are you exploring uncharted waters? Are you taking a risk that your character will be less able when finished?

Nope...

It's because you prefer no one be able to multi class except for flavor only because gaining abilities is next to cheating in your eyes and "because I say so" doesn't ring your own internal "Uh oh I am about to say something arbitrary in 3..2..1" self censor.

There are a lot of people in this thread who love to just say so... they don't have a reason, they don't even know their own reason, they just arbitrarily say things like "pure should always be best" this is actually a classic logical fallacy disguised as a completely arbitrary irrational preference... it's a disguised appeal to authority, Pure must be best because that's the way the makers first designed it, and the makers couldn't be wrong! if the makers can be wrong it upsets their concrete world view of everything the maker did being "the best".

I am on board with making pure 20 the best specialist (not the ONLY specialist just the best), the most practiced and learned at one class specialty... But by in large that's not what they are doing with core 18 and 20, they are just handing out generic heaping chunks of DPS and mitigation. With the old Enhancement pass T5's being the way to specialize currently; the cores have become the place to back up the dump truck and make the whole class much more powerful overall, instead of the place there the "diploma of specialization" is obtained. The cherry on top is fast becoming the Steak and Potatoes.

[IronClan]

I could not disagree more. It doesn't make any sense what-so-ever that "a pure class should be stronger than a multi class because they have trained in that class all their "life"".

^this

and Specialty isn't always the best idea.

Is Stephen Hawking more specialized that Spock? Sure but who would you rather have on your away team?

[IronClan]

All I know is, without creative multiclassing this game would have shut down years ago.

It is literally the only thing keeping me from playing other MMO's instead of DDO... it is perhaps the thing I spend the most time doing, it is **** near MANDATORY considering the TR hamster wheel they have created, and the 79 million XP the game sets as it's loftiest goal.

You know what I did last night driving from Atlanta back to VA? Besides jaming Red Fang too loud; I pondered a staff build for Rooster. Last week it was my caster, the week before that my Vanguard... it's the only reason I have nearly 20 alts.

I don't mind them improving capstones, but they aren't simply improving them: they are backing dump trucks up to them.