Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Lonnbeimnech]

In red box, humans could only dual class and demi-humans could multi-class. XP was evenly split over your classes and you used the separate XP tables for each to determine their level. Maximum levels were capped and only Human could get to 20. So by definition a 20/20/20 human couldn't exist.

Obviously you're free to do whatever you like by making your own house rules or playing by later rule sets.

That's how I remember it as well.

[Fetchi]

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.

+1
]
Couldn't have said it any better.

[HAL]

It takes exceedingly little thought to build a proper pure class character. To gimp a pure (that isnt gimped by turbine) almost requires that you try to do so. Purposely.

I disagree. I think you are taking your years of playing DDO for granted. It is a very complex character creation system.

[FranOhmsford]

FranOhmsford's remembrances of the DnD P&P progression concerning multi-classing differ from mine. Keeping in mind that Multi-Class is an indication of 3 Classes which only the demihuman races could do. Humans could only Dual Class. They are right that classes had limits on how High they could go.

First as far as the leveling scheme anything above level 20 would have been house rules. As the actual time it would take to level that high would require a long time of gaming or a DM who likes to give out lots of XP.

PnP Basic - Redbox
Humans could Duel class - Levels stopped at 10
demihumans where both race and class together, each level gained them specific abilities; ie Elf would get fighter type abilities or mage type abilities as they leveled up

Advanced - Blue Box
Humans still limited to Duel class
demihumans now open to different classes, however, there were still some racial class limits. Such as only a human could be a Paladin and Dwarves could not be mages

Another, restriction came with XP - Which perpetuated itself through 3.5 was that if multiclasses had more than a single level difference between them there were penalties applied to the XP earned and how the XP was divided also had rules.

While I did not play 2nd or 3rd edition I did come back with 3.5 and even played 4th. I have not tried 5th edition.

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.

[FranOhmsford]

again you reference rules that arent part of 3.x our base. Druids do not have to be TN in 3.x stop going back to rules we dont use it isnt valid

Just because WotC ignored rules that were there for a reason doesn't mean Turbine should have!

Turbine is quite willing to take new rules from 4th and 5th Ed. so why the problem with wanting rules from 1st or 2nd?

DDO hasn't been anything like 3.5 for a very long time!

[Braegan]

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...

[Enoach]

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.

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.

[Uska]

Just because WotC ignored rules that were there for a reason doesn't mean Turbine should have!

Turbine is quite willing to take new rules from 4th and 5th Ed. so why the problem with wanting rules from 1st or 2nd?

DDO hasn't been anything like 3.5 for a very long time!

different rules for different editions. But you always want to quote from a LONG DEAD editon and say they are doing it wrong when they arent.

and technically 4e and 5e are advances so reaching but upgrades.

[SirValentine]

Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

Which one is that? I haven't seen it. Ever since the Enhancement Crash, multiclass has been so far ahead of most pure builds it's not the least funny. Now, a minimal amount of love for capstones has you upset?

Pure builds should be strictly better at their specialty...because they specialize in it. By multi-classing you should gain versatility at the expense of focus, for roughly equal overall usefulness. Of course, it hasn't actually worked that way in DDO in a long time. Multi-class have had both the greater breadth they should, plus greater depth I feel they shouldn't.

[SirValentine]

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?

Quoted for truth, because "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Braegan again."

[FranOhmsford]

Actually thinking about it...

What if when DDO was created, rather than allowing completely free form Multi-Classing the Devs had decided instead to make:
Dual-Classing require 10/10
and
Multi-classing require 7,7,6
while adding in Multiclass Tiers that upped the DCs of Spellcasters, Trapping ability of Rogues etc.

What if they'd stated that:
Fighter can multiclass with everything {up to 3 classes max of course}
Barbarian could only multiclass with Fighter, Ranger, Bard or FavSoul {later on with Druid} {CANNOT be Lawful}
Cleric could only multiclass with Fighter, Paladin or Monk
Paladin could only multiclass with Fighter, Cleric or FavSoul {MUST be Lawful Good}
Ranger could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue or FavSoul {later on also with Druid}
Rogue could only multiclass with Fighter, Ranger, Bard, Wizard, FavSoul or Monk {later on also with Artificer}
Bard could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue or Sorceror {CANNOT be Lawful}
Wizard could only multiclass with Fighter and/or Rogue {later on also with Artificer}
Sorceror could only multiclass with Fighter and/or Bard
FavSoul could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin, Ranger or Monk
Monk could only multiclass with Fighter, Cleric, FavSoul or Rogue {MUST be Lawful}
and later on:
Artificer could only multiclass with Fighter, Wizard or Rogue
Druid could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger. {MUST be True Neutral}.

Oh and lastly:
Warlock could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Bard or FavSoul

*I've only placed the "and" in there for classes with only two multiclass possibilities as it should be obvious it also applies to 3 classes.*

Would that not have given enough Multiclass combinations for any of us?

Would the game actually have been worse for it or better what with the Devs not having to balance the game to account for blatantly broken multiclass options?



What if instead of giving Half Elves a weak Dilletante Feat the Devs had instead said that H-Elves could Multiclass ANY Classes. Even those with opposing Alignments {Paladin/Barbarian anyone?}.

[Bennum]

They should be the best at what they do. Personally, I'm ok with such powerful things being in the 18 and 20 cores. There hasn't been enough reason to go pure (or even mostly pure) in a very, very long time. The fact that people are now having to really decide whether to go pure, do 18/2, or some other class split is a good thing. For several years now, it's been all low-splash multi-classes and the people who went pure or even mostly pure got basically completely shafted. So, your "annoyance I guess you'd call it" is completely unwarranted because multi-classers have been on top since Menace of the Underdark came out. With the number of threads about how "it's not worth going more than X levels into Y class" that existed for years before now, you'd think you could just kind of sit back and say "Well, it's about time there were some hard choices and that going pure is an actually viable choice now". Since you're getting "annoyed", you just look butthurt.

Agreed

[Enoach]

Actually thinking about it...

What if when DDO was created, rather than allowing completely free form Multi-Classing the Devs had decided instead to make:
Dual-Classing require 10/10
and
Multi-classing require 7,7,6
while adding in Multiclass Tiers that upped the DCs of Spellcasters, Trapping ability of Rogues etc.

What if they'd stated that:
Fighter can multiclass with everything {up to 3 classes max of course}
Barbarian could only multiclass with Fighter, Ranger, Bard or FavSoul {later on with Druid} {CANNOT be Lawful}
Cleric could only multiclass with Fighter, Paladin or Monk
Paladin could only multiclass with Fighter, Cleric or FavSoul {MUST be Lawful Good}
Ranger could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue or FavSoul {later on also with Druid}
Rogue could only multiclass with Fighter, Ranger, Bard, Wizard, FavSoul or Monk {later on also with Artificer}
Bard could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue or Sorceror {CANNOT be Lawful}
Wizard could only multiclass with Fighter and/or Rogue {later on also with Artificer}
Sorceror could only multiclass with Fighter and/or Bard
FavSoul could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin, Ranger or Monk
Monk could only multiclass with Fighter, Cleric, FavSoul or Rogue {MUST be Lawful}
and later on:
Artificer could only multiclass with Fighter, Wizard or Rogue
Druid could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger. {MUST be True Neutral}.

Oh and lastly:
Warlock could only multiclass with Fighter, Barbarian, Bard or FavSoul

*I've only placed the "and" in there for classes with only two multiclass possibilities as it should be obvious it also applies to 3 classes.*

Would that not have given enough Multiclass combinations for any of us?

Would the game actually have been worse for it or better what with the Devs not having to balance the game to account for blatantly broken multiclass options?



What if instead of giving Half Elves a weak Dilletante Feat the Devs had instead said that H-Elves could Multiclass ANY Classes. Even those with opposing Alignments {Paladin/Barbarian anyone?}.

Then they would have used even fewer of the 3.5 Rules that the DDO system was started with. Not everything translates well to a non-turn based game.

[J-mann]

Which one is that? I haven't seen it. Ever since the Enhancement Crash, multiclass has been so far ahead of most pure builds it's not the least funny. Now, a minimal amount of love for capstones has you upset?

Pure builds should be strictly better at their specialty...because they specialize in it. By multi-classing you should gain versatility at the expense of focus, for roughly equal overall usefulness. Of course, it hasn't actually worked that way in DDO in a long time. Multi-class have had both the greater breadth they should, plus greater depth I feel they shouldn't.

Sure, but DPS is not really a specialty (unless barb. Which I think should have the best dps. But now it can heal and survive solo without any trouble throwing that idea out the window). Further have you even looked at the recent class passes? Rogue pass pretty much screams you must go pure. Barb pass screams you most certainly should go pure (this one I have a little less problems with on the dps side of things since barb should be dps and thats about it, but as it stands there is very very little to be gained by mcing and much dps to be lost by doing so). As ranger pass stands currently there is no reason to mc anything with ranger unless your a mcing ranger with pally. Pally pass says be at least 14 preferably 15 and if you want to vanguard definitely go pure.

Again, since all these pure screamers seem to not be able to read, pure should get some nice things no doubt, but in no way should it be so obviously the best that only flavor builds will consider otherwise, and THIS is the direction we are currently on. Make it an interesting choice not lol you didnt go 18/20? you just cost yourself 20% of your dps. (exaggerating a bit, but really not much).

[FranOhmsford]

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.

If by Official you mean Tournament rules then yeah I'd be very surprised!

But as those rules are by necessity tight it's not really relevant.

ALSO: DDO is NOT a Tournament that only lasts a few days!

What I'm saying is that there was NO rule in 2nd Ed. and none past early 1st Ed. that I know of - Heck Just to become a Druid {or Bard...One of the two} you had to Dual Class THREE times - that stated you couldn't Dual Class as many times as you wanted.
The restriction was that you had to surpass the level of your previous class BEFORE you got to use the abilities of both classes {So 7,3,9 wasn't possible BUT 5,6,8 was}.

In fact - House Rules COULD restrict things further as well as open things up!



As for 3rd Ed,+ it's simply not even the same game!
Changes from Red Box to 2nd Ed. rules were a streamlining and advancement of ONE ruleset!
Changes at the onset of 3rd Ed. turned it into a completely different game!

4th Ed. did it again!

I haven't even bothered looking at 5th Ed. and don't want to!

But there is possibilities for DDO in early editions - Simple example - Gnomes!
When Turbine gets round to giving us the Gnome race/s it would be a very good idea for them to adapt the Wis Based 2nd Ed. Forest Gnome or Svirfneblin along with an Int Based Zilargo Gnome.

Restricting Druids to True Neutral would have immediately removed any possibility of the blatantly OP Monk Wolf Builds!

Thac0 may be disliked by many but what it did do right was provide maximum possible stats {Saves too}.
3.5 did away with ThacO {which I can see the point of going from 1-32 rather than 20 - -12 {-12 being the highest possible AC in the game and that being restricted to Great Wyrm Red or Gold Dragons - If I remember correctly Player Characters couldn't get better than -10 no matter what they did!} BUT they also removed that secondary restriction!
So Stats keep going up! {DCs, Saves, Skills etc. - Just up and up!}.

It may be too late to correct that now but what if the Devs had foreseen Players {And Mobs} having DCs, Saves, Skills of over 100 before it happened and stated that 100 was an absolute maximum over which no more bonuses would count?

The Devs could have then scaled the Mobs in Epic Elite Level 30+ Quests to cope with those stats while also making sure the Mobs wouldn't be beyond the Player's Reach!

The Devs could also have kept in all those extra bonuses and therefore allowed players to CHOOSE how they got that 100 DC, Save, Skill etc. at Lvl 30!

Lastly they could have gone back down the levels and adjusted mobs DCs, Saves etc. to a level that could be reached by the Player of the Level of the quest! {Sort of like when they redid Trap DCs}.

[J-mann]

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...

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.

[FranOhmsford]

Then they would have used even fewer of the 3.5 Rules that the DDO system was started with. Not everything translates well to a non-turn based game.

We all know not everything translates well!

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 and if they had accounted for those advances would I'm sure have stated that both AC and To Hit would have a maximum number after which they couldn't be taken any higher through any means!
Either that or completely thrown out the AC/To Hit System as unworkable...Which didn't they end up doing anyway?

However: The changes I just laid out wouldn't have any problems translating to a non-turn based game {they're not system changes} so I'm not sure what you're getting at here?


Restrictions to Multiclassing would obviously count as House Rules with DDO being the House so again this isn't removing rules but changing them to suit DDO while remaining faithful to the source {Many of those multiclass restrictions I put in would have been allowed in 2nd Ed. Others wouldn't! Druid for example couldn't Multi-Class FULL STOP. Neither could Paladin or Ranger!}.
So no I'm not simply harking back to 2nd Ed. here - I realise that some of the rules in 2nd Ed. were a little too restrictive {1st Ed. was much worse with restrictions} just as I realise that 3.5 is too open!




Obviously it's too late to go back now and put in a Multiclass system like that BUT I hope you can all see that it would have forestalled a heck of a lot of Power Creep and Balance issues over the years.

[Braegan]

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.

First point) How hard or How Difficult =/= to Zero as you stated. That is the point I was trying to make. Take for example, my pure human fighter. Pure Vanguard with some SD and some Kensei enhancements. Has all the good melee feats and also has great ranged combat including Manyshot. To balance that took planning and proper placement of feats to allow certain tomes to kick in. Just because he is a pure character doesn't mean he is a simple build that took no planning.

Second point) Wait, wut? Regarding Bolded part. You think they messed up by front loading, but are complaining about back loading? Seriously? They are doing exactly what you want! They are providing power in trees and cores to make viable and powerful characters keeping with the common character level splits (18/2, 12/6/2, 13/6/1, etc). Really this part makes me wonder. They are basically giving you what you want and you are complaining about it? Yes they did give some nice viable choices for staying pure as well, but that's good design to encourage thought and make you ponder a choice rather than have a no-brainer clear win.

Starting to wonder about this thread...

[FranOhmsford]

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.

So....How many Pure Bard Swashbucklers or even Warchanters are there out on the Live Servers?

There are plenty of Multiclassed Warlocks out there - Far more than I'd have assumed possible considering how strong the Pure version is!

You'll barely see a Pure Cleric any more! Heck the 18/2 Fighter and 17/3 Clonk Builds have been superceded by builds that can only barely be called a Cleric!

Rogue is possibly still the most multiclassed Class in the game! So it's probably for the best that Pure is strong enough now for Pure Rogue to be even noticeable!

Paladin you're ignoring the 15/5 14/6 etc. builds to make your point - Rather hurts your point by ignoring those builds actually!

Barb - Yes...Here we have a class where the Devs may have gone too far. BUT Barb is probably the least multiclassed Class throughout the game's history already!
The most often seen Multiclass of Barb is Fighter Levels for Feats - So it's again probably for the best that the Capstone is strong enough to count for what amounts to the loss of two Feats!

[Enoach]

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.

I think part of the assumption is that there is no planning on a pure class or sacrifice. Which is a bad assumption. Be it dealing with class feat limits or maximizing aspects of the build with the limited available enhancements. I think trying to say one is not hard is stretching it. Now what I will agree with is that multi-classing has more pitfalls, and wrong directions. I'm sure we have all heard of people who have planned builds only to find their alignment is wrong, they don't qualify for a feat when they expected or miscalculated the Skill Points or AP necessary. Multi-class are usually effected more with each class changes in the game since they have more classes.

Front loading a class makes it favor multi-classing. Backloadking a class favors pure. Striking a balance is important. But also making sure there is a differentiation between multi-classing (versatility) and pure (specialization) remains.

Turbine needs to make sure there is also a balance in quest mechanics to leverage this. Mechanics drive build direction. An example of this was when the Vale of Twilight was first introduce many who had geared towards heavy DPS for the Giants of Giant Hold, began to shift towards DC type abilities and even started to value vorpal and banishment type effects. Where prior to that Paralyze and heavy damage, including spell nukage was the primary direction of builds.