Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Duskofdead]

It's less bad than when everything was 12/6/2 with monk levels.

Have to emphatically agree. When I came back two years ago this is literally all I saw in the game. And the playstyle turned into "play at this frenetic, zerg through everything pace, or don't play at all" due to the predominance of this build.

I didn't enjoy my last stint in DDO at all, precisely for the quoted reason.

[Duskofdead]

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 don't agree at all, and I think given your stated personal bias towards heavy multiclassing, you may not realize how one-sidedly you seem to be viewing the issue.

The reason there has to be something compelling about "pure" is because the reality is that if there isn't, ALL everyone is going to do is find the small number of min-max combinations of multiclasses which provide you the most benefit with the least drawback. The game already has come dangerously close to being strangled to death by turning into exactly that with my memory of monk-sorc-arti a couple of years ago.

I get that you like multiclassing, and as a result, you don't like seeing it upstepped by something else. But I think you're being disingenuous to say there is NO logical reason there should be exclusive (and valuable) benefits to pure classing. The reason is simple. If no such thing exists, then there is absolutely no reason to pure class anything, ever, and nobody will do it.

What multiclassing SHOULD offer (and always has, to some degree) is the flexibility of shoring up shortcomings of a particular class and bringing more variety or a greater flexibility of possible contributions to group play. What it should not do is completely invalidate pure classes by letting a multiclass bring ALL of the advantages worth having of its various classes, to effectually as great an extent as if they had pure classed in that class. That's the illogical position, imho.

[Qhualor]

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.

so it makes more sense to you that someone who has been trained for 20 years should not be better at something than someone who has been trained for 12, 6, 2? how does a multi class get more powerful than a pure? by taking advantage of the low hanging fruit from multiple trees. we are talking DDO here, not earning belts in Karate or high scholl degree vs a medical degree. 2 splashes of rogue shouldn't make any build better at trapping than a pure rogue. 6 levels of ranger shouldn't make any build better at ranged than a pure AA ranger. 12 levels of fighter shouldn't make any build better at tactical fighting than a pure fighter. a multi class should only have the advantage over a pure because of versatility. they should be good at multiple things, not better at multiple things that a pure is supposed to thrive at. this isn't narrow minded or thinking backwards. this just makes sense.

[Jeromio]

so it makes more sense to you that someone who has been trained for 20 years should not be better at something than someone who has been trained for 12, 6, 2? how does a multi class get more powerful than a pure? by taking advantage of the low hanging fruit from multiple trees. we are talking DDO here, not earning belts in Karate or high scholl degree vs a medical degree. 2 splashes of rogue shouldn't make any build better at trapping than a pure rogue. 6 levels of ranger shouldn't make any build better at ranged than a pure AA ranger. 12 levels of fighter shouldn't make any build better at tactical fighting than a pure fighter. a multi class should only have the advantage over a pure because of versatility. they should be good at multiple things, not better at multiple things that a pure is supposed to thrive at. this isn't narrow minded or thinking backwards. this just makes sense.

I don't think it always makes sense that a pure class should excel at certain class specific attributes. Other classes might have synergy effects making the character better. A level 2 rogue might be a much better trapper than a level 20 one, if he's e.g. a hyper intelligent genious lvl 18 wizard as well (of course... he will not have improved evasion and his back stabbing will suck as well as other pure class features).
A 12 lvl fighter might be better than a pure, if he's also a barbarian helping to get higher DCs (he will of course have less feats).

IMHO, multiclassed and pure characters should both be viable options, and it should be a difficult decision going for either the capstone or making a multiclass... meaning both options should be viable; no option should be better than the other. This gives more flavor and options.

[Qhualor]

I don't think it always makes sense that a pure class should excel at certain class specific attributes. Other classes might have synergy effects making the character better. A level 2 rogue might be a much better trapper than a level 20 one, if he's e.g. a hyper intelligent genious lvl 18 wizard as well (of course... he will not have improved evasion and his back stabbing will suck as well as other pure class features).
A 12 lvl fighter might be better than a pure, if he's also a barbarian helping to get higher DCs (he will of course have less feats).

IMHO, multiclassed and pure characters should both be viable options, and it should be a difficult decision going for either the capstone or making a multiclass... meaning both options should be viable; no option should be better than the other. This gives more flavor and options.

really? you don't think a pure class should excel at class specific attributes? if 12 levels of a class is enough to be better than a pure or on par, than why go pure? you can just grab all the low tier stuff and make a top tier versatile build that excels at multiple things that can be better than a pure class specific and in other areas. that is what we have now with certain multi classing builds.

please note that im not talking about multi classing not being viable with class specific attributes. I just think its silly that you can build a character with 2-3 class levels that excel better than a pure and are able to be versatile with trapping or healing or tactical fighting or dps, etc. 2 of the biggest reasons why players multi class.

1. versatility. playing a pure wizard wont get you trapping skills, but 2 levels of rogue will. playing a pure FVS wont get you evasion, but 2 levels of monk will. playing a barb you want to grab more feats, so taking 2 levels of fighter will get you more.

2. going pure isn't strong enough for what you are trying to get out of a character. theres a lot of low tier power, could be more power in a T5 from another tree, cores in another tree giving more power.

[IronClan]

I don't agree at all, and I think given your stated personal bias towards heavy multiclassing, you may not realize how one-sidedly you seem to be viewing the issue.

And vice versa.

Again I would have left years ago without the puzzle of builds. One sided? Am I supposed to enjoy the loss of what I value the game for most because some people don't like multi-classing and secretly think of it as "cheating" (some of them even just outright say it)

DDO is not a particularly good action game as action games go, the controls are sloppy and slow to respond like only a action "que" can cause, the combat is far less engaging than Diablo III, oh how i wish DDO could do hit detection and paperdoll mob blow back like it.
It's not a particularly good RPG Pillars of Eternity is a preeminent RPG so I dont need DDO for that.
Its social aspects are minimal and mostly they only exist at end game and end game is only a couple raids so...
Its a amusement park MMO so it doesn't have opportunities for emergent game play of a sandbox.
It's engine isn't particularly amazing or pretty, other games have that going for them
It doesn't even make a half hearted effort at trying to have a immersive world to run around in, and even if it tried there's no one else besides your party members in it.
Most of the long term things you see in MMO's DDO doesn't do... housing, live events, crafting, veteran rewards long term goals.

No, this leaves puzzling out new and different builds then playing them as the primary thing that keeps me logging in.

I log in because of DDO's build customization... I posit that others do as well in fact the only thing you will hear almost everyone agree on these forums about is that DDO has deep characterization, and that its DDO's primary strength.

People who want to make pure builds optimal want the game to be simple and classes to be self explanatory always best at what they do... There's no nice way to put it. No matter how that motive is couched or hidden, it's the basic underlying truth.

So by all means disagree all you want, I am here because of build customization, and I wont be if that keeps going away. I don't need to point out that I'm not alone in that, you all know very well that it's what draws a lot of us to the game.

[Kriogen]

DDO is designed not for lets say Fighter or Barbarian but for 'can you hit hard enough'. Not for specific class, but for a 'build that can do the job'.

If a build can do the job (win a quest), its good, if not you reroll/respec/etc. The rest is do what you want, do some role play, go for style.

So can your <insert single class> or <insert multiclass> build do the job? If yes, where's the problem?

[redoubt]

I think there is some serious hyperbole in this thread!

Why should pure be better than multi? The question should really be "how" should pure be better than multi?

In DPS? No, not guaranteed. A fighter who spends time training as a monk may be specifically looking for ways to fight better and thus improve (or at least maintain equivalent) DPS.
In DC for a caster? I think most people would say yes. There is nothing a wizard can train at that would produce synergy. Even other spell casting classes. Sorcs just work different and the wizard might learn some different tricks, but it would not make the wizard stuff better, it would just add other things (and thus weaken the wizard stuff due to less training on it.)

Why would a level 12 rogue and a level 20 rogue be equally good at assassinating? One has spent 8 additional levels learning how to do it better. The one with more levels should be better at it. (The degree is up for debate.) Could a multiclass assassin be as good or better at being sneaky? Absolutely, maybe they studied ninja spy training. But not at assassinating (unless you want to say that assassinate should be separate from rogue entirely, then that's another debate and we bring in the monk ninja assassin crew.)

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.

Enoach has it here. If the balance is not hit it drives builds one way or the other.

Now, I've recently played 2x pure paladin, pure assassin rogue, pure swash buckler and a 6ranger/6monk/8cleric arcane archer. All were fun! (I was also playing a 18wizard/2 rogue, but was having DC issues, so I LR'd him to pure to try with a few more DC for the new content.) The paladin was pure for flavor reasons (oh, say it isn't so!), the assassin for DC, the swash because I'd never done it (I think I'd mult-class it if I did another bard.)

Now I'm playing a 16warlock/2rogue/2paladin. I started with 20 INT and 18 CHA (talk about paying a steep price to multiclass and get trap skills!) I also gave up the all options to get the following as they are in the 18/20 cores:

2d6 blast and 2d4 pact
3d6 light damage per blast
5% crit chance with blast
10% blast attack speed
1d6 blast damage
30% spell critical multiplier

In return I gained:

rull trap skills
evasion
saves all above 70 (@level 27 including amenity bar buffs.)

I gave up a lot, but I did so to gain things I wanted on the build. At the same time my friend is playing a pure warlock and does a lot more damage. If there was not good stuff at 18&20 then there would be no reason to every do pure. Its a balancing act. I had to think long an hard about giving up the things in the 18/20 cores. In the end, I felt the bringing the trap skills to my groups to be worth the sacrifice. I lost power (DPS), but gained versatility (trap skills) and survivability (saves.) This is how it should work. You should never get everything the class has to offer on a split and there should never be a capstone so good that you MUST take it or be gimped for life/

All that said, I don't see anything in the 18/20 cores of deepwood nor tempest that are compelling reasons to stay pure. That is as bad as having something too good there.

[walkin_dude]

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

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

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

Actually, at least the way I always understood it (going back to my pnp days), a multiclass character would have more versatility than a pure, but not necessarily more sheer power. Things seem to have got off-kilter in DDO for a while, with the monkchers and juggernauts and such, but IMO it makes perfect sense for a class's most potent abilities to be in the 18/20 cores. You can choose to have a lot of the power of a class with a five-level splash and tier 5 enhancements, but I definitely support making the level 18 and level 20 core abilities just a little better.

[Axeyu]

so it makes more sense to you that someone who has been trained for 20 years should not be better at something than someone who has been trained for 12, 6, 2? how does a multi class get more powerful than a pure? by taking advantage of the low hanging fruit from multiple trees. we are talking DDO here, not earning belts in Karate or high scholl degree vs a medical degree. 2 splashes of rogue shouldn't make any build better at trapping than a pure rogue. 6 levels of ranger shouldn't make any build better at ranged than a pure AA ranger. 12 levels of fighter shouldn't make any build better at tactical fighting than a pure fighter. a multi class should only have the advantage over a pure because of versatility. they should be good at multiple things, not better at multiple things that a pure is supposed to thrive at. this isn't narrow minded or thinking backwards. this just makes sense.

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.

[walkin_dude]

So, you're saying that DM's you've played PnP with wouldn't have allowed this kind of a character, either? I just want to make sure I'm not some kind of alien here.

At least according to the 1st and 2nd Ed. rules (the only ones I have familiarity with), I believe it would have been theoretically possible to dual-class a character to 20/20/20. As has already been implied, this is a level 60 character so ... I'd hate to estimate how long it'd take to do it.

The multi-class one, however, would have been non-human and as such limited in levels for most classes. In 1st Ed. most races could get unlimited levels as a thief, but an elf would top out at level 9 as a fighter and level 11 as a magic-user. I believe the 2nd Ed. limitations were similar. And if a character were to go this route, by the time it got to 20/20/20, the other members of the party would be much higher level.

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

[walkin_dude]

DDO would never have worked if PROPER Multi-Classing was allowed.

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

[walkin_dude]

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, 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.

[walkin_dude]

"pure should be best" why?

At one particular thing, sure (which is what I believe coyopa meant). Best at using a repeater (should be arti); best at using a great crossbow (should be mechanic); best at twf (should be tempest); etc. There are plenty of things each of those won't be best at, and a multi-class toon can be "pretty dang good" at any of them.

[Jeromio]

really? you don't think a pure class should excel at class specific attributes? if 12 levels of a class is enough to be better than a pure or on par, than why go pure? you can just grab all the low tier stuff and make a top tier versatile build that excels at multiple things that can be better than a pure class specific and in other areas. that is what we have now with certain multi classing builds.

please note that im not talking about multi classing not being viable with class specific attributes. I just think its silly that you can build a character with 2-3 class levels that excel better than a pure and are able to be versatile with trapping or healing or tactical fighting or dps, etc. 2 of the biggest reasons why players multi class.

1. versatility. playing a pure wizard wont get you trapping skills, but 2 levels of rogue will. playing a pure FVS wont get you evasion, but 2 levels of monk will. playing a barb you want to grab more feats, so taking 2 levels of fighter will get you more.

2. going pure isn't strong enough for what you are trying to get out of a character. theres a lot of low tier power, could be more power in a T5 from another tree, cores in another tree giving more power.

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.

[Coyopa]

"pure should be best" why?

Way to cherry-pick the part of the quote that allows you to argue. Good job! On a serious note, the argument has been made that pure should be best at what that class does. Not that it should be "the best". Period. The fact is that there hasn't been any advantage to staying pure - or even mostly pure - since the enhancements were overhauled with the release of Menace of the Underdark. This means that it has been a no-brainer to multi-class because of the massive advantages you could reap by doing low level splashes. There should be a reason to stay pure or mostly pure and the choice between 20 or 18/2 and everything else should be at least a little bit hard. Think of pure classed characters as specializing in what that class does. They should get powerful abilities at 18 and 20 class levels in exchange for giving up the flexibility that comes with 12/6/2, 11/6/3, 8/6/6 or whatever class split tickles your fancy - and the capstone should be more powerful than the 18th level core because they're giving up the ability to do any trapping (if not a rogue), the extra feats that come with monk, fighter, or ranger, and whatever else it is they could get by splashing 2 levels of whatever class.

Before MotU came out, all my characters were pure classed. Now? Of the ones I actually play, I have an 18 bard/2 rogue, a 20 rogue, a 20 paladin, an 18 druid/2 ranger, an arti/rogue split (will be 15/5), a 17 bard/3 fighter, an 11 ranger/6 monk/3 paladin, and a 13 rogue/4 monk/3 fighter. The paladin was just +20 LR'd straight from pure cleric to pure paladin because I was sick of that character sitting around with all this hard-to-acquire gear and doing nothing with it. The only reason that character is pure is because I didn't want to invest the time figuring out what split I wanted and what with. So, out of 8 characters, only 2 are pure and one of those is only pure because I was lazy and wanted to get back to playing the game. I'm sure you'll say all that doesn't mean anything about staying pure. The problem for you is you can't honestly say that and, even if you try to say you can, nobody will believe you.

[Coyopa]

At one particular thing, sure (which is what I believe coyopa meant). Best at using a repeater (should be arti); best at using a great crossbow (should be mechanic); best at twf (should be tempest); etc. There are plenty of things each of those won't be best at, and a multi-class toon can be "pretty dang good" at any of them.

Yeah. That is exactly what I meant. I see no reason why multi-classing can't be just as viable and fun as it currently is, while at the same time staying pure or even going 18/2 should be just as viable and fun as multi-classing. That's all I would like to see. I have come to quite enjoy multi-classing, myself. Doing that does make for interesting puzzles to solve (not all of which actually turn out the way you envision them). Even with my failed multi-class characters, like my melee-focused 11 ranger/6 monk/3 paladin, seeing how the pieces would fit together and testing them in epic levels is worth the journey through heroic. A pure build should be a specialist and, as such, they should have powerful abilities - especially in the capstone. A multi-class character is a generalist and should be able to bring a lot to the table without specializing. As I see it, we've got the second one: multi-classes bring a lot to the table without specializing; however, we do not yet have the first. That needs to happen. There are plenty of people who do not enjoy multi-classing and they should be just as engaged as those who enjoy multi-classing. Just because multi-classing is what's keeping IronClan around doesn't mean that should be the sole focus of character building. There needs to be balance, where IronClan (and I) can make the interesting multi-classes and the people who prefer staying pure can have just as much fun and be just as useful in the epic levels.

[Darkmits]

Where to start...

1) DDO is not a PnP game through computer. First and foremost. Just because it took ideas from it does not mean it behaves as one. The "Dungeons and Dragons" in the name is mostly to denote a setting and somewhat vaguely familiar mechanics.

2) The game is not turn based. It's real-time. Just because you have the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th attack rolls does not mean it behaves as turn-based

3) The world is not a discreet grid, it's continuous. Just because effects can have a certain radius does not mean the game is on a grid (please do not counterargue that we have world coordinates that are discreet, you know what I mean)

4) The game revolves for the crushing majority of its content on damage done per second and avoiding dropping below 0 hit points. This is widely different from any edition of D&D.

Why I said the above? Because any comparisons to editions of D&D need to be made on the assumption that the above all hold true.

Now regarding multiclassing and comparison to pures, I guess we have to compare it to point (4). DDO is a game about dps and staying above 0 hp. This means:
- Any class combination that has as a result less dps than another class combination is unviable. The degree of unviability is subjective and depends on the player. Some players consider a 1% disadvantage to be enormous. Other players don't mind 50% or even 80% disadvantage. I have been on both sides, as a hardcore server-first-contending-raider in WoW and as a "filthy" casual in Rift.
- The only case a performance-driven player would accept lower dps would be if the survivability tradeoff meant that a previously non-overcomable obstacle would be overcome. If, for example, a boss deals 100dps, Build-A has 50hps and Build-B has 100hps but half dps, then Build-B is preferable for that boss, unless you could bring a dedicated healer to keep you up.

One of the most common way to design a class is to have in the very early levels some powerful abilities and/or class-unique ones. Then mid-levels the growth slows down and then picks up abruptly again near the end with more signature abilities. DDO seems to have tried this and got it working in a lot of combinations, but the Enhancement system has broken the balance by making available from very few levels most of a class's potency (you can reach the top tier in a tree with only 5 levels and 30 enhancement points). To counter this issue, they made the core abilities require high levels.

A very sound argument from both sides is:
- If multiclassing should be better, then why design high levels for pures? Why not cut them off at level18? Why allow people to nerf themselves?
- If pures should be better, then why allow multiclassing? Why allow people to nerf themselves?

The point of multiclassing, from my point of view, is to gain a UTILITY that can make your character better at something they can't do when a player of that class is missing. Getting a few rogue/artificer levels should be done for being able to handle traps. Getting a few Cleric/FvS levels should be done to be able to provide some healing. Getting a few paladin levels should be done to be more effective against undead. Getting a few bard levels should be to be able to provide undispellable buffs. But a crucial point should be that when you are in a group with a character going full pure in one of those classes/roles, then your character should be performing worse than if you had gone pure. That is the point of Utility and multiclassing (again from my point of view). The current trend of the first 2 levels in a class different than your main giving a more significant boost in your main class's purpose than the last 2 levels in said class is a design oversight.

The obvious counterargument is that if the above was true, then the only desired group composition should be full pures complementing each other. And personally I'm fine with that. Because the benefit of multiclassing should be (again in my view) the ability to do something you cannot do with 20 levels in your main class. At the same time, we have quite a lot of people soloing or doing dungeons in small groups of 2 or 3, but even in full groups, the party splits up and each "soloes" a different target. So multiclassing should allow you to be able to survive obstacles that you wouldn't as a pure, but you shouldn't be more powerful on your primary role compared to pure. DDO currently with the his Enhancement system design doesn't deliver that.

[BigErkyKid]

And vice versa.

Again I would have left years ago without the puzzle of builds. One sided? Am I supposed to enjoy the loss of what I value the game for most because some people don't like multi-classing and secretly think of it as "cheating" (some of them even just outright say it)

DDO is not a particularly good action game as action games go, the controls are sloppy and slow to respond like only a action "que" can cause, the combat is far less engaging than Diablo III, oh how i wish DDO could do hit detection and paperdoll mob blow back like it.
It's not a particularly good RPG Pillars of Eternity is a preeminent RPG so I dont need DDO for that.
Its social aspects are minimal and mostly they only exist at end game and end game is only a couple raids so...
Its a amusement park MMO so it doesn't have opportunities for emergent game play of a sandbox.
It's engine isn't particularly amazing or pretty, other games have that going for them
It doesn't even make a half hearted effort at trying to have a immersive world to run around in, and even if it tried there's no one else besides your party members in it.
Most of the long term things you see in MMO's DDO doesn't do... housing, live events, crafting, veteran rewards long term goals.

No, this leaves puzzling out new and different builds then playing them as the primary thing that keeps me logging in.

I log in because of DDO's build customization... I posit that others do as well in fact the only thing you will hear almost everyone agree on these forums about is that DDO has deep characterization, and that its DDO's primary strength.

People who want to make pure builds optimal want the game to be simple and classes to be self explanatory always best at what they do... There's no nice way to put it. No matter how that motive is couched or hidden, it's the basic underlying truth.

So by all means disagree all you want, I am here because of build customization, and I wont be if that keeps going away. I don't need to point out that I'm not alone in that, you all know very well that it's what draws a lot of us to the game.

Worth repeating. Kill build crafting and you kill the game. They already killed a lot of it with epic wards and moving towards cleave packs of mobs until you hit the boss design.

Current pure and using the single best weapon for the build is boring. This goes for rogues, paladins (not multi classed), barbarians and soon rangers. Bards are OK.

[BigErkyKid]

A very sound argument from both sides is:
- If multiclassing should be better, then why design high levels for pures? Why not cut them off at level18? Why allow people to nerf themselves?
- If pures should be better, then why allow multiclassing? Why allow people to nerf themselves?

The point of multiclassing, from my point of view, is to gain a UTILITY that can make your character better at something they can't do when a player of that class is missing. Getting a few rogue/artificer levels should be done for being able to handle traps. Getting a few Cleric/FvS levels should be done to be able to provide some healing. Getting a few paladin levels should be done to be more effective against undead. Getting a few bard levels should be to be able to provide undispellable buffs. But a crucial point should be that when you are in a group with a character going full pure in one of those classes/roles, then your character should be performing worse than if you had gone pure. That is the point of Utility and multiclassing (again from my point of view). The current trend of the first 2 levels in a class different than your main giving a more significant boost in your main class's purpose than the last 2 levels in said class is a design oversight.

The obvious counterargument is that if the above was true, then the only desired group composition should be full pures complementing each other. And personally I'm fine with that. Because the benefit of multiclassing should be (again in my view) the ability to do something you cannot do with 20 levels in your main class. At the same time, we have quite a lot of people soloing or doing dungeons in small groups of 2 or 3, but even in full groups, the party splits up and each "soloes" a different target. So multiclassing should allow you to be able to survive obstacles that you wouldn't as a pure, but you shouldn't be more powerful on your primary role compared to pure. DDO currently with the his Enhancement system design doesn't deliver that.

The way I see pure classes is as edges in the frontiers of different ability axis. There is Crowd Control, DPS, Healing, Defenses, Utility.

A pure class is, by design in DnD, a combination of the 5 primary abilities. It so happens to be that in DnD that combination tends to be skewed for every class towards one such ability. For instance, barbarians excel at DPS and clerics at healing.

Mutliclassing is moving away from those defined packages to pick more of a primary ability, and if design is sound, it will mean giving up on some other primary ability. For instance, a cleric could forego some healing to gain melee DPS splashing bard.

There are several design decisions to be made in allowing for that:

- What is the importance in defeating content of each ability: ideally it should be well balanced, but we know it is not.

- Can you achieve more of a primary ability multi classing than staying pure?: For instance, a druid multi classed with monk can reach better DCs than a pure druid. Should a barb splash rogue have more DPS than a pure bard (at some cost)?

The problem of DDO right now are:

- Lack of proper trade offs: DPS has been married to healing in some classes (barb, bard, paladin)

- Overemphasis on DPS: a pure barb can complete the vast majority of content (raids included) without needing utility or crowd control or anything else beyond what is provided by his class.

- Heavily backloaded DPS: barbs, rogues and now rangers (updated classes) have excessively backloaded DPS. Since DPS is key and the rest are not, there is little to no sense in splashing something else if it means losing DPS.

This is why multi classing is dying. Look at the signature builds of the new updated classes. The vast majority are pure.