Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Axeyu]

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."

Now you are just making things up.
I'm not hiding anything. My first post in this thread was: "I agree. When pure builds are best it vastly reduces build variety and creativity. Multiclassing is what makes the character customization in this game stand out, so that is where it should focus."
So I have made it pretty clear where I stand.
I am seeking to tell the people who keep saying that multiclasses should never be better than pure classes, multiclasses should be solo builds, multiclasses should not be able to focus on anything, multiclasses should only be jacks of all trades, the most powerful abilities should always come from the 18/20 cores etc. that that kind of thinking will killing off multiclassing will take 90% of the character customization down with it.

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

Do I want balance? Yes, ofcourse I do! But balance is hard to achive with this many variables without just making them all the same. It's not reasonable to think that there will ever be perfect balance. The scales for any given class will favour multiclassing or going pure, that is just the reality we have to face. And in that I think that it's better if it favours mutliclassing instead of going pure because there is simply so much more to multiclassing than just making a pure build.
When I see the FB 18/20 cores I only see a huge mistake. So much multiclass potential lost. So many build variations lost. So much theorycrafting and build puzzling lost. I hope dearly it is never repeated, that some people in this thread does not get their way.

[FranOhmsford]

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.

Why swap to a Wand of Fireball when you have a Fireball Rune-Arm?

That Rune-Arm btw is a Godsend in Tomb of the Tormented!

http://ddowiki.com/page/Hand_of_the_Tombs deals 2-8 Fire damage per hit {every single bolt!}.
http://ddowiki.com/page/Lucid_Dreams deals 2-12 Force damage per hit {every single bolt!}.

That's not nothing!

Skill Mastery gives +1 to all Skills.
Those that matter it's not going to make the difference between success and fail
Those that don't matter don't matter

Slippery Mind - What's the point of having two Saves when the Mob's going to beat them anyway?

[Axeyu]

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

For pretty much every listed build you could have a hundred potential multiclasses. So no, you don't have much options in pure classes. Not compared to multiclassing.
Not to mention that selecting a tree and maxing it out and call it a day is not exactly interesting character customization.

[redoubt]

For pretty much every listed build you could have a hundred potential multiclasses. So no, you don't have much options in pure classes. Not compared to multiclassing.
Not to mention that selecting a tree and maxing it out and call it a day is not exactly interesting character customization.

So having a few good pure class options does not negate multiclassing. I'm glad we finally cleared that up.

[FranOhmsford]

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.

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.

[walkin_dude]

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?

Eh, a few pages back I posted what I thought were some pretty probing questions, but never an answer. The agenda is glaringly obvious.

[redoubt]

Bottom line is, I won't settle for one or the other. If the game won't support both pure and multiclass it is a goner for me.

I left SWG when the new game experience happened. They killed build versatility and I left.

I've been playing Destiny for a month now. There are only 3 classes and they have 3 subclasses each. The only difference in them is a "super ability", what their melee punch does, and the grenade type. Build versatility is very low. I'll probably play it until I finish the story on one of character types. I've already gen'd up a second character, but they play the same and the story doesn't change.

So I do want to see this game continue to support a huge array of build options. I just believe that you should not invalid pure while you are at it. There needs to be a compelling reason to be a pure class, from this baseline you go and figure out a way to multiclass for better and/or different abilities than the ones you give up.

[Qhualor]

Ranger Spells = Quality of Life?

Better Dodge = Quality of Life?

You cannot be serious!


The people who play Pure Rangers and state that they're good on the forums have almost uniformly been people who came to the game WANTING to play a Ranger {Archer!}.
Many of them had played Archers in other games like WoW and that's what they wanted to play here!
This means an inherent bias towards claiming the Class is fine because they have worked out how to play it and usually don't play anything else!
If you were able to go back and read their EARLY posts however you'd see the rants! And complaints!

Veteran Ranger Players are a small niche in DDO {Very small!} and are ALL NOW VETERANS!
The reason they became Veteran Ranger Players is because they perservered through all the cries of Gimp and Noob and being booted from Groups, Not allowed in Groups in the first place!
They became extremely skilled at playing one type of Character - One very specific Playstyle!

Ranger is NOT a Good Class BECAUSE it requires you to go through a whole load of HELL first!
I'd hazard a guess that Ranger is by far the most popular class for newbies in DDO History! The lack of Pure Rangers at End-Game shows just how bad that Class actually is in DDO!




Any Class can be claimed as Good by someone who's spent years working out exactly how to play that Class, Has excellent Knowledge of 90% or more of the Quests in the game, Knows exactly what gear to get at each level AND has the general Skill {something DDO does require btw!} to compete in EEs in the first place!

You don't claim a Class is Good based on the odd Superstar however!
You don't claim a Class is Bad based on the bottom 10% either!
You claim a Class is Good based on what the AVERAGE can do with it!

And the Average player can't do anything with Pure Ranger - That's why the Multi-Class Builds are so common comparatively!



I think what a lot of people are missing with this Pures vs Multiclass discussion is that the Average Player can now take a Pure Paladin, Warlock, Barbarian, Rogue into Epics and compete!
Bard unfortunately is still much more common as a Multiclass.

What is being missed is that that does NOT mean that Pure is better than Multiclass for the Top Tier Players!
Top Tier Players wouldn't even consider playing a Pure KotC Paladin when they can take 5 Ranger Levels or a Mix of Fighter/Monk/Rogue Levels!
Top Tier Players wouldn't even consider playing a Pure Vanguard or Sacred Defender full stop!
Top Tier Players only play Pure Warlock if they're looking to get quick past lives - If they're going into Epics that Warlock will have 2-4 levels of something else!
Top Tier Players wouldn't even consider playing a Pure Acrobat when they can get more from Fighter/Monk levels!
Rogue Assassin has always been best off Pure
Mechanic may be ahead of 18 Rogue/2 Arti but not by enough to make a Top Tier Player go pure every time and there's a number of possible Rogue/Arti/Ranger splits that aren't 18/2!
Barb is the only Exception here and even then Bardbarian Warchanters are still pretty common! {Probably doesn't help that Swashbuckler is far more common than Warchanter!}.

I've seen an impressive number of Warforged/Bladeforged Sorcs recently {Since Warlock came out}.
Sorc benefits strongly from Paladin and/or FvS Levels {Bard is also a pretty common split}.

As for the so called "Lesser" Classes - The ones that haven't had their Updates yet:
When was the last time you saw a Pure Ranger in Epics that wasn't a Known Ranger Player?
When was the last time you saw a Pure Cleric, Arti or Wizard in Epics that wasn't somebody's old alt/main dusted off and brought out for ENs?
When was the last time you saw a Pure Fighter in Epics that wasn't some newbie?
When was the last time you saw a Pure FavSoul full stop?
And don't get me started on Druids!


It doesn't matter how strong the Devs make Pure Characters in those character's main zone - Multiclass will always be stronger based on variety!

yes. I consider improving ranger spells to be a quality of life fix. you disagree? heres what I would take for a pure ranger

level 1:

resist energy
jump
rams might
empty

level 2:

protection from elements (never use it though)
barkskin (you need extremely high AC for it to actually be useful)
empty
empty

level 3:

neutralize poison (don't use it because its a mana drain and can just drink pots)
remove disease (don't use it when I can drink pots to save sp)
cure moderate wounds (back up to the back up to the back up)
empty

level 4:

freedom of movement
cure serious wounds
empty
empty

everything else is useless, needs a DC raise to be worth slotting, doesn't stack with gear, pointless or something that makes them not worthy of a spell slot. some, as I have pointed out, I slot more for just in case. there are no hard choices and the all 3 spells that a ranger has for spell damage and/or CC are useless, even with investment.

rangers should be behind monks and rogues in dodge, but I don't think they are. that's disregarding mixing classes, twisting and gear. I don't remember my ranger having a very high dodge and I know whe 2 of my characters did ranger past lives they didn't have very good dodge, but I did tell Varg I cant dispute it until I play around with the ranger class on Lama to see for myself.

as usual you use the "new player" argument. look, you have to put some effort into building a character if you want to make them better. I don't expect someone with little to no knowledge of a class to be able to build a powerful character. through experience comes the power. if you don't learn from experience, play around with things than you will never improve. claiming something is bad doesn't necessarily make it bad. it starts with you.

multi classing ranger is popular because of the front loaded perks the class gets. multi classing is very powerful when players can grab the majority of the power from the front end and mesh it together with a class that has the power spread out more. I have no problem with versatility but class powers need to be spread across the class more fluidly and not the majority of it at the front.

I really don't care what the powergamers or top players are doing with builds more or less. if I can make a powerful character than im happy with that. you don't need to min/max classes to beat DDO. its already bad enough that some builds and power creep already trivialize the game. that "+1" more isn't necessary. I build from flavor and make it work. I don't know how many times ive been told that im doing it wrong and than turn around and prove to them I did do it right.

[PsychoBlonde]

You're familiar with how P&P handles multi-class rogue skills? DDO allows you to continue to max out your rogue skills after you multi-class.

I wouldn't say it's an issue you couldn't create a 20/20/20 multi-class Fighter/Mage/Thief, it's a fundamental misunderstanding if you expected this to be possible in the first place.

Uh, this is actually how multi-classing worked before 3rd edition. If you played a non-human character, you could level in multiple classes at the same time, you just got XP at half (or a third) the rate. But it was heavily restricted by race (certain races could only do certain classes up to certain levels, for instance if you were a dwarf you could be a fighter/thief and go fighter up to 13 or so and thief unlimited, or you could be a fighter/cleric and do 13 fighter/5 cleric). Non-humans couldn't be certain classes AT ALL (like paladin or druid). And don't get me started on dual-classing. It was an incredibly bizarre and confusing mess. Later stuff came out (Skills and Powers, IIRC) that removed many of the restrictions or made them optional. So it's reasonably understandable that someone who was familiar with THAT version of D&D might think this is how multiclassing "works". 3.0 and 3.5 removed all this bunkum and systematized it all, but it was also a radically different approach.

As for "should pure classes be the best". No. They should get good perks that compensate for their lack of FLEXIBILITY, sure. But there shouldn't be any "this is The Official Best" for anything. That's stupid and defeats the purpose of HAVING options in the FIRST place.

[bartharok]

You might want to look at my last post - It's just below yours but if you can't find it:

Right you are. But reading further in the players handbook, i wouldnt dual class into several classes, because i would be pretty useless most of the time, because i couldnt use any of the previous abilities and still advance.

[HungarianRhapsody]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

[HungarianRhapsody]

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!

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.

[HungarianRhapsody]

Right you are. But reading further in the players handbook, i wouldnt dual class into several classes, because i would be pretty useless most of the time, because i couldnt use any of the previous abilities and still advance.

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.

[Ykt]

There should be a significant trade-off for splashing 2 levels instead of going pure. Otherwise there's no point in going pure and everyone will go 18/2 because the last 2 levels don't bring enough to matter.

[Xenich]

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

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

[Xenich]

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.

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.

[HungarianRhapsody]

There should be a significant trade-off for splashing 2 levels instead of going pure. Otherwise there's no point in going pure and everyone will go 18/2 because the last 2 levels don't bring enough to matter.

There is. You miss out on your capstone.

...now, that might not be *enough* of a trade off, but it is the tradeoff that DDO has had for as long as there have been capstones.

[HungarianRhapsody]

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.

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.

[Xenich]

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.

Depends on the DM, the type of campaign, etc...

[kismetbuy]

Well since the game is basically solo I really could care less about pure or multiclass do to the fact you don't have to deal with complaining ubers anymore in the group cause you can't self heal.

The less you know the more you believe.