Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[Duskofdead]

You are constantly saying how things should be and are supposed to be, without giving any reasons why.
It's pointless for me to try to argue against "because that's how I want it".

I, and others, have given many good reasons why it's important that multiclassing is alive and well (which is always at the cost of pure builds). None of it has been adressed for some reason.

I think you are conflating "alive and well" with "loses absolutely nothing worth caring about from pure classing by multiclassing."

I think everyone agrees multiclassing should be alive and well. The disagreement is over the second (hidden) definition of what "alive and well" seems to really mean and it's dishonest to imply otherwise.

If the design of the game and powercreep and the setup of classes is such that it is compelling (mandatory) to go pure because otherwise you lose too much in terms of DC's and min-max effectiveness, the problem then is with the game designers and not with some imaginary group of "class purist haters who are all irrational and have no reasons."

[Chai]

Don't bother responding if you don't also adress this:
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.

Multi-classing for being a jack of all trades is alive and well. There are plenty of variants of bard, paladin, ranger, warlocks, and wizards running around which do traps, have decent survivability and decent DPS. The enhancement pass made multiclassing better than pure. The current class revamps are balancing that back out, but are -not- making pure -always- better than multiclassing. The 5-7 level warlock splash builds, the 14-15 level paladin builds, the 14/4/2 bards running around, are showing that even after revamps happen to a specific class, that multiclassing is still perfectly legit. Im fine with the pure no brainer characters being powerful enough with less effort. This is how you teach D&D to newer players. They learn classes first before they learn mixing classes.

The majority of the self sufficiency being shoe horned into every single class is in large part a community issue. The community demanded self sufficiency and solo-ability in game and on the forums hand over fist for years at a time, and the revamps gave them what they asked for. Now the community backpedals and wants everything to be all D&D again, while at the same time demanding class balance, which is a direct contradiction. D&D 3.5 (the D&D rule set DDO was based on) is not a balanced game. In the eternal debate regarding class balance -vs- keeping the game D&D focused, the closer that slider moves toward one of those entities, the further away it moves from the other.

[Axeyu]

Im fine with the pure no brainer characters being powerful enough with less effort. This is how you teach D&D to newer players. They learn classes first before they learn mixing classes.

Everyone is fine with that.
I'm just not fine with that pure builds should be the most powerful at specific tasks.

Multiclasses vs pures will always be hard to keep balanced. So if it is to lean towards one it should in favour of multiclasses. They simply offer so much more variety, character customization and depth.

[Qhualor]

You are constantly saying how things should be and are supposed to be, without giving any reasons why.
It's pointless for me to try to argue against "because that's how I want it".

I, and others, have given many good reasons why it's important that multiclassing is alive and well (which is always at the cost of pure builds). None of it has been adressed for some reason.

It should be because isn't DDO based off the inspiration of PnP? Aren't fighters considered a tactical specialist? Aren't barbarians about raw dps? Aren't rogues about trapping and sneak attacks. I didn't know I had to point out the obvious.

Have I said anything that multi classing should not be viable? No, I havent. I have said that a wizard splashing rogue shouldn't be better at trapping. You are putting words in my mouth and I don't like it.

[Coyopa]

Everyone is fine with that.
I'm just not fine with that pure builds should be the most powerful at specific tasks.

Multiclasses vs pures will always be hard to keep balanced. So if it is to lean towards one it should in favour of multiclasses. They simply offer so much more variety, character customization and depth.

No, it should lean toward pures specifically because multi-classes offer more variety, customization, and depth.

[Axeyu]

No, it should lean toward pures specifically because multi-classes offer more variety, customization, and depth.

So the game should discourage variety, customization, and depth?

[Axeyu]

It should be because isn't DDO based off the inspiration of PnP? Aren't fighters considered a tactical specialist? Aren't barbarians about raw dps? Aren't rogues about trapping and sneak attacks. I didn't know I had to point out the obvious.

Have I said anything that multi classing should not be viable? No, I havent. I have said that a wizard splashing rogue shouldn't be better at trapping. You are putting words in my mouth and I don't like it.

Fighters can be a tactical specialist, barbarians can be about raw dps, rogues can be about trapping and sneak attacks.
What characters are about is defined by their attributes. A wizard can be about trapping if that is what he has focused on.


There is no d&d reason or logical reason for wht a wizard splashing rogue shouldn't be better at trapping. It is only your opinion, the only reason is because you want it to be that way. That is fine ofcourse.

[Gljosh]

I have played pure, 18/2, 18/1/1, 16/2/2, 15/3/2, 11/9, 13/6/1, etc. It is easier to play a pure class in static group play, where you don't need to do everything ok to well. BUT as the population has declined you see more people doing a little bit of everything, which can discourage group play...which in turns leads to more "solo" players. Also, players don't like to feel like a niche build, rogue/arti do traps and are not DPS leaders. I (with 2 rogue levels) have been able to out trap a pure rogue (assassin/Acrobat builds). BUT in a quest like EE Haunted Halls, I can go some traps just not overly well.

If a class has a nice level 18 Core ability in a tree that I plan to spend lots of points in, then 18 level is a good point to stop so I can pick up some Traps skills. If the 18 Core is not that great or in a tree I don't envision putting most of my points, then maybe I stop at 15, add in Traps, and a Defensive Stance. The Enhancement Pass created a lot of very good low hanging fruit that is sweeter then the 18/20 Cores.

[Chai]

Everyone is fine with that.
I'm just not fine with that pure builds should be the most powerful at specific tasks.

Multiclasses vs pures will always be hard to keep balanced. So if it is to lean towards one it should in favour of multiclasses. They simply offer so much more variety, character customization and depth.

Right now it still leans in favor of multiclass, even after the revamps that have already been done. There are examples which test that rule, but the vast majority of examples still favor the rule. With the enhancement pass making everything so front loaded, its good to have some back loading done to at least make it a trade off. I wish we would have seen this level of discussion on this topic back when many pure builds were the gimps. A lot of feedback was stated that there was no reason to be more than 14 bard, more than 11 ranger, more than 12 fighter, etc. Now we at least have reasons.

[Coyopa]

So the game should discourage variety, customization, and depth?

No, there's no reason why making pure builds competitive and viable in end-game (as compared to multi-class builds) would discourage multi-class builds (or "variety, customization, and depth"). There needs to be a reason to give up the "variety, customization, and depth" and stay pure, which means putting impressive abilities and benefits into the capstone (in particular). For several years, the game has belonged entirely to multi-class builds and the people who chose pure builds were the new players and people who couldn't figure out how to make good multi-class builds. Just because pure builds become viable and competitive doesn't change the strengths of multi-class builds. It all comes down to how you want your character to perform and what you find fun, in the end. It's funny to me how it's just the min-maxers whining about how they perceive pure builds to be evolving into "top dps" builds, especially when pure builds haven't been anywhere near the "top", let alone competitive, since MotU came out!

EDIT: Oh, and nice false alternative argument there, Axeyu. Good job!

[Axeyu]

There needs to be a reason to give up the "variety, customization, and depth" and stay pure, which means putting impressive abilities and benefits into the capstone (in particular).

No, there really must not. Nothing more than simplicity.

Just because pure builds become viable and competitive doesn't change the strengths of multi-class builds. It all comes down to how you want your character to perform and what you find fun, in the end.

The strength of multiclass builds is directly dependant on how strong pure builds are, as the relative strength of builds is what you really compare.

EDIT: Oh, and nice false alternative argument there, Axeyu. Good job!

Just because you don't get the implications of your statements does not mean I presented a "false alternative argument".

It's funny to me how it's just the min-maxers whining about how they perceive pure builds to be evolving into "top dps" builds, especially when pure builds haven't been anywhere near the "top", let alone competitive, since MotU came out!

If pure barbarians and paladins are nowhere near the top then I'm not sure what you are comparing. It certainly can't be DPS or overall quest/raid performance.

[FranOhmsford]

One thing to remember about those books. They were a product of the "post coup" TSR. So selling those splat books had a big influence on their content. In other words, adding favorable (to the purchaser) rules options to drive sales tended to override game balance concerns. Not so bad with 2e, but taken to the extent that 3.5 took splat books resulted in Pun-Pun the omnipotent Kobold.

Yes 3.5 got ridiculous!

But I don't agree at all that that's what they set out to do with those books in 2nd Ed. - The early ones {Thief, Priest} gave virtually no power whatsoever and later ones though they did give power also kept the drawbacks {Kits had huge drawbacks if the DM was good!}.
What those books did do was expand greatly on what was at times less than a 3rd of a page {sometimes just a table with no rhyme or reasoning} in the PHB and DMG!

With 2e rules, why would anyone even want to multi-class fighter and paladin? It would basically just mean taking twice as much xp to level for no real gain.

Flavour?

It's the Dual Class thing that really gets me though - You're saying that a Lawful Good Rogue or Bard or Wizard can Dual-Class into Paladin BUT A FIGHTER CAN'T?
How does that make any sense?
Ditto for the Paladin deciding to learn from a Weapon's Master while remaining true to his God - By the rules it's simply not possible BUT He can Dual Class into a Wizard!

Also, barbarians only existed as a kit that most classes could take, not as a class onto itself. Late 1e had it, as well as cavaliers and archers, as a class but that was dropped with 2e.

Wrong!

Cavaliers became a Kit and stayed that way more's the pity - I loved the 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana Cavalier and happily adapted it to 2nd Ed. {The Cavalier Kit was a Joke!}.

But Barbarians got their own Complete Handbook which turned them back into a Class with their own Kits and a whole load of different types of Barbarian based on where they came from.
And yes they were counted under Warrior so no you couldn't be a Barbarian/Fighter or Barbarian/Ranger {Unless you used the kits in those Classes Books} but you could be a Barbarian/Cleric and use a Barbarian Kit OR a Cleric Kit {Not that there were any Cleric Kits - The Priest's Handbook was terrible!}.

[Gremmlynn]

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

That's 3e.

[Chai]

Flavour?

It's the Dual Class thing that really gets me though - You're saying that a Lawful Good Rogue or Bard or Wizard can Dual-Class into Paladin BUT A FIGHTER CAN'T?
How does that make any sense?
Ditto for the Paladin deciding to learn from a Weapon's Master while remaining true to his God - By the rules it's simply not possible BUT He can Dual Class into a Wizard!

A 17 in cha was needed just to become a paladin. That was a good barrier to entry to begin with. Then those other classes had their own stat requirements. I made people roll their characters up in front of me and the vast majority did not have the stat requirements met to do a lot of fancy dual classing


Y

es 3.5 got ridiculous!

But I don't agree at all that that's what they set out to do with those books in 2nd Ed. - The early ones {Thief, Priest} gave virtually no power whatsoever and later ones though they did give power also kept the drawbacks {Kits had huge drawbacks if the DM was good!}.
What those books did do was expand greatly on what was at times less than a 3rd of a page {sometimes just a table with no rhyme or reasoning} in the PHB and DMG!

Wrong!

Cavaliers became a Kit and stayed that way more's the pity - I loved the 1st Ed. Unearthed Arcana Cavalier and happily adapted it to 2nd Ed. {The Cavalier Kit was a Joke!}.

But Barbarians got their own Complete Handbook which turned them back into a Class with their own Kits and a whole load of different types of Barbarian based on where they came from.
And yes they were counted under Warrior so no you couldn't be a Barbarian/Fighter or Barbarian/Ranger {Unless you used the kits in those Classes Books} but you could be a Barbarian/Cleric and use a Barbarian Kit OR a Cleric Kit {Not that there were any Cleric Kits - The Priest's Handbook was terrible!}.

It wasn't necessarily the DMs, but the company themselves who set out to make hundreds of different variants. Tons of splat books rakes in tons of money.

[salmag]

Mostly because it is competing with 5 levels for enhancement trees and other low hanging fruit.

So, how to fix it? I can pretty much guarantee that I'll get burned at the stake for this but take away the "low hanging fruit!"

Pure classes should be better at their respective specialty than multi-class splash characters. Splash characters should be more versatile and be able to do MORE things, though not as good as a specialty (pure) class.

Artificers - scrolls/potions/infusions, buffing weapons/armor, traps
Barbarians - overall DPS, rage
Clerics - healing/divine spells
FVS - offensive divine spells
Wizards - DC arcane spells
Sorcs - DPS arcane spells
Rangers - DPS vs. favored enemies, limited healing
Paladins - DPS vs. Undead/Outsiders, limited healing
Rogues - traps, overall sneaking
Warlocks - Eldritch Blast DPS, limited spellcasting
Druid - DPS in forms, animal companions, nature spells
Monk - Unarmed combat, Ki abilities
Bard - buffing people, songs

Multi-class characters should take the best of both classes, partially split by level.

- a 15 paladin/5 Ranger should not be better than a 20 Paladin or 20 Ranger at the above mentioned.
- a 18 Wizard/2 Rogue should not better at assassinations or traps then a 20 Rogue, etc.

I propose to balance it out correctly. This is a drastic step and will not be favorable but:

Change all Enhancements to one point each (except for ANY that boost Ability Scores). This allows for more enhancements.
Change Cores to be accessible as follows -> core 1 @ level 1, core 2 @ 4, core 3 @ 8, core 4 @ 12, core 5 @ 16, Capstone @ 20.
Tie the Enhancement Tiers to the Cores. You can only take the tiers that you have the core for. Hence, Core 1 takes Tier 1, etc.
You could not access higher Tiers until you reach higher levels and take the appropriate core.

A pure class has access to ALL tiers of their respective enhancement trees.
A multi class can only take the tiers appropriate to their respective level. In the above examples:

-The 15 Paladin/5 Ranger should not be able to access any Tier 5 Ranger or Paladin enhancements. They should have access to Tier 1-2 Ranger enhancement lines (DWS, Tempest, AA) and Tier 1-4 Paladin lines (Vanguard, SD, KOTC), as well as their racial tree. 5 levels of Ranger should NOT give access to Tier 5 Ranger enhancements. That skews their power in the wrong way. If you want higher tier Ranger enhancements, build a Ranger, not a Paladin (hello).

-The 18 Wizard/2 Rogue should access all Tier 1 Rogue (Mech, Assassin, T/A) enhancements and Tiers 1-5 Wizard (EK, AM, PM), as well as their racial tree.

I understand this change is drastic, but it would bring the power creep down, balance all the classes more, and probably make the game a bit more of a challenge.

OK all...

Flame away...

[Gremmlynn]

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

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

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

Actually, I think many of those who are arguing against meaningful capstones simply feel that pure characters are mostly pointless and it's unimportant if they are even viable. It's simply a different point of view on what classes represent in the game and what the role of the entire game is. I wont say I agree with them, mostly because things like the requirements for the higher level spells argues against it, but see there view as valid for a differently designed game (I've played one D&D based video game where max class level is 16 and max character level 32 and thus designed for that sort of thing, for example).

D&D has always had an issue of caster classes always having meaningful gains for leveling, while non-casters generally top out and hit a level up void at some point. DDO really emphasizes this.

[Qhualor]

Fighters can be a tactical specialist, barbarians can be about raw dps, rogues can be about trapping and sneak attacks.
What characters are about is defined by their attributes. A wizard can be about trapping if that is what he has focused on.


There is no d&d reason or logical reason for wht a wizard splashing rogue shouldn't be better at trapping. It is only your opinion, the only reason is because you want it to be that way. That is fine ofcourse.

yes a wizard can focus on trapping. im not saying they shouldn't or they cant. all im saying is that they shouldn't be the best at trapping than a pure rogue that also focuses on trapping. they can be second best. that's all there is too it.

the attributes right now are defined much easier today than they used to be because of the enhancement system and restrictions tied to AP cost and level of class mostly. it wasn't like that at one time where to be good at trapping it meant giving up an important DC for a wizard. it all depended what you were going for on your build. its like when splashing monk for evasion on a FVS was worth the loss of a capstone because you gained better survivability.

it is your opinion that pures should not excel at the one or more aspects that are inherent to the class. having it your way would mean no point in playing a pure class when you could just dip into other classes to be better than what a pure should be able to do better. im surprised you aren't more upset in the Tempest threads that they now have improved 2WF to be one of the best. oh, but they are still behind the 15/5 PALADIN that splashes so I guess that's ok.

[Chai]

That's 3e.

Nope, its 2e.

In 3e there weren't 3 class limitations, and all classes needed the same xp to level, and were not leveled at the same time like they were in 2e.

2e was the one that required multiclass characters to level both classes at the same time, while making charts that required different xp totals per level. Example: Rogue was less xp to level while wizard was a lot more.

[Qhualor]

So the game should discourage variety, customization, and depth?

this is the problem you have. you think people are saying that multi classing shouldn't be viable and you think with an extreme frame of mind. I haven't seen anyone say that.

[Axeyu]

this is the problem you have. you think people are saying that multi classing shouldn't be viable and you think with an extreme frame of mind. I haven't seen anyone say that.

You have a double standard. There has never been a time when pure builds were not viable.