Can we stop with the everything must be pure kick?

[walkin_dude]

You completely missed that I was just repeating what you said about pures.

You are saying that X kills off pures, yet you want X for multiclasses.

Speaking for myself, if I want to try some particular multi-class build, I would want to derive some benefit from doing it. Likewise, if on another occasion my preference is to try some particular pure build, then I would also want to be able to derive some benefit from that, as well.

For example, if I want to get the most out of a swf fighter, I might find value in splashing some bard for swashbuckling. Since I'll be using light or no armor anyway, I might also find two levels of rogue to be valuable. People splash a some levels of fvs onto a cleric if they want a toon that can make good use of the cleric SLA boosted with the fvs enhancements.

So it's obviously okay for multi-classing to help. But does this mean that every "best thing" needs to come from multi-classing? I say no. It's fine for pure classes to be good, too.

Again, I have to wonder with the fixation on "killing off" some aspect of the game. Let's not kill off either method.

[Chai]

Chai - You do realise you've just argued with yourself right?

That first quote has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 2nd Ed.!

And your second quote completely contradicts it anyway!


BTW - No...2nd Ed. did NOT require you to level both classes at the same time {That was a possible optional rule!} - You could be Lvl 7 Rogue with 1xp away from Lvl 8 and Lvl 6 Wizard half way to 7.
What you couldn't do is take 8 Rogue BEFORE you'd taken 7 Wizard!
So a lot of people chose the other option of adding up the XP of both classes and levelling them as one!

Straight out the 2E PHB it specifically states how the xp is divided evenly between the two classes when multi-classing. It was not an optional rule. I also tossed a screen shot of the rule where paladin needed a 17 cha just to be a paladin. If youre going to not use rule as written that's fine, but attempting to say its not rule as written when its right there in the book, is incorrect.

[Axeyu]

You missed a very significant part of the quote: "that also focuses on trapping". If a player, who has selected a class which has "disarming traps" as its description and then focuses on enhancing that to the max, is not better at disarming than a player who chose a different class that doesn't even have it as a perk but still focuses on the same aspect, then the class of the first player falls into one of the definitions of "broken" in videogames.

Again, the skills are not a function of your specific class level.

He's just not better at the thing the pure character focuses on!

Classes are not that focused. If a multiclass can focus even narrower, why is that a bad thing?

[walkin_dude]

There is just one major flaw in your reasoning: You don't get the trap skills from taking the rogue levels, you get them from spending the skill points and increasing the skills. Skills are separate from classes. Perhaps you don't like that, but it's still true. Your will does not change reality.

But let's face it: other classes don't get the same number of skill points, right?

A splash rogue can get enough search and disarm, and will have evasion, but that's pretty much it. All of the rest of what it is to be a rogue isn't manifest in that splashed toon. So if the only measure of "what is a rogue" is the ability to disarm a trap, then I believe you'd be right. However, I don't agree with that measurement.

edit: let's also be clear that the splash rogue won't be better than the pure rogue at any of the roguish things he does.

[Chai]

You're conflating two separate things and claiming them as one.

If you don't roll a 17 {or higher} then you can't play a Paladin in the first place - Chances are the DM will let you re-roll or up your highest stat to 17 if you really want to play a Paladin but that's by the by.

We're talking about Dual-Classing rules here - Yes there's a rule that you need 17 in your second classes main stat to Dual Class into it!
THAT DOES NOT = No-One can ever dual-class!

Yes that rule carries on so if you want to have 3 classes you will need 17 in each of those Classes main stat {it is possible for two classes to have the same main stat btw}!
AGAIN THAT DOES NOT = No-One can ever dual-class twice! {3 Classes}!

It is a requirement NOT a prohibition!

There seems to be some confusion between rule zero versus rule as written. Whats in the book is rule as written. The DM allowing something or disallowing something is rule zero. Your Dm allowing you to do whatever you want is fine, but that's not whats written in the books.

[Axeyu]

It is a specific task. It's damage versus a specific type of enemy. Ranger gets a class benefit at certain levels. Going level20 should bring the best benefit against that type of enemy assuming the player has been focusing on it as well. If another build emerges that deals better against that type than pure, then pure is undesired for not one, but two reasons: 1) It is not the best against that type and 2) The other player can also perform some other duty better. Similarily to the song comment and spell damage comment.

Why does 2) not apply to the pure ranger as well, if he can do some things better than the multiclass? Pures get versatility too, you know.

The logical fallacy is this: Someone who is not focusing on something is better at it than someone who focuses on it. We're not discussing about weird experiment builds like Int-8 Rogue putting 1 point in Disable Device vs Int-20 Wizard levelling it all the way, we're discussing Int-20 Rogue vs Int-20 Wizard/Rogue both levelling it all the way. If assuming everything else being equal (gear, tomes etc) the Wizard manages to have higher Disable Device than Rogue, then something is wrong in the design of the Rogue.

Both are focusing on it. There is no fallacy there.

Multiclasses can focus too. Just because you don't want them to be able to does not change that.

Character customisation is for 100% of players. Some builds work better when soloing, some better when in a group assuming the same challenge. It's up to the player to decide what they like.

If players who group are better off with pure builds then they lose out on 90% of the character customization.

Please show me where I pulled a strawman.

Here is the straw man:
"But you can't ask that this build should also be providing the best damage, best trapping, best healing and most avoidance out of all possible builds at the same time. It is called "Jack of all trades, master of none", not "Jack of all trades, master of all""

No one is asking for one build to "be providing the best damage, best trapping, best healing and most avoidance out of all possible builds at the same time."

[Braegan]

There seems to be some confusion between rule zero versus rule as written. Whats in the book is rule as written. The DM allowing something or disallowing something is rule zero. Your Dm allowing you to do whatever you want is fine, but that's not whats written in the books.

I think this is what Fran is talking about:

Dual-Class Benefits and Restrictions Only humans can be dual-classed characters. To be dual-classed, the character must have scores of 15 or more in the prime requisites of his first class and scores of 17 or more in the prime requisites of any classes he switches to.

Taken from PHB 2nd ED PDF. Sorry didn't have time to make a SS of it. But it's easily found on Google.

[Darkmits]

Again, the skills are not a function of your specific class level.

Classes are not that focused. If a multiclass can focus even narrower, why is that a bad thing?

I think I have found an example to demostrate what we mean:

At character creation, the human starts with all values at 8 and has 28 points to spend. The player then decides to either focus on 1 or 2 stats and be as good as possible in skills relating to them but bad at everything else or they can spread it out and be average in everything. You can make 18 - 16 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 8 (excellent in one part, very good at one part, bad at one part, very bad at 3 parts), or you can make 16 - 16 - 14 - 10 - 8 - 8 (very good at 2 parts, good at 1 part, bad at 1 part, very bad at 2 parts), or 14 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 12 (good at 2 parts, average at 4 parts) or whatever else you want to build. But you can't make 18 - 18 - 18 - 18 - 18 - 18 (excellent at all 6 parts) or even 16 - 16 - 16 - 16 - 16 - 8 (very good at 5 parts and very bad at one part), you simply do not have enough budget for that. If one of those 2 builds were possible, then the whole specialization feature of a class-based system breaks down.

Classes and builds exist to tell you what you can do, and what you cannot do that others can. If you can come up with a build that is equal or superior to absolutely everything compared to another build with no disadvantage whatsoever, then the second build is bad. On its own this is not a bad thing. It becomes a bad thing when a feature coded and included in the game becomes obsolete due to this fact. If holding a twohander would provide better damage and better armor class in every case compared to onehand + shield, then onehands and shields would be obsolete. If Concentration checks didn't exist, then Quicken spell becomes obsolete. If no armor or light armor provided better mitigation than heavy armor in every case, then heavy armor would be obsolete.

This is why we argue that pures should be the "best" at their intended design. Because if they are not, they are wasted code, wasted UI space, wasted theorycrafting time.

[Chai]

Classes are not that focused. If a multiclass can focus even narrower, why is that a bad thing?

That's when people start carping for nerfs.

Example:

If tree A B and C are all from different classes.

A has 30 points of offense
B has 30 points of offense
C has 30 points of offense.

If most or all weaknesses can be covered by buffs, clickies, gear, etc....80 points can be put into offense with little to no trade off. If this sounds familiar, that's because the game was like this for multiple years when multi-classing was best, and people familiar with the meta game continually claimed DPS was king.

Its not an end all cure all for DDO to turn the game into a pure class game, but it is a legit argument to say everything wasn't unicorns and rainbows when multi-class was very far ahead.

[FranOhmsford]

Straight out the 2E PHB it specifically states how the xp is divided evenly between the two classes when multi-classing. It was not an optional rule. I also tossed a screen shot of the rule where paladin needed a 17 cha just to be a paladin. If youre going to not use rule as written that's fine, but attempting to say its not rule as written when its right there in the book, is incorrect.

OK it seems I've been concentrating so much on the rest of the Multiclass rules that I missed the first paragraph. I apologise.

It seems what I've always thought was an optional rule is actually the rule as written and what so many other people used {1 level difference} is the House Rule.

Oh and I do use that rule - I just thought it was an optional rule and not in the PHB.

However:
1) This is one of my problems with only using the PHB - The less than a page devoted to multiclassing and less than a page devoted to Dual-Classing is nowhere near enough to cover the inherent issues.
The PHB deals in basics - The rest is left up to the DM {House Rules} and specialized books {Rule clarifications}.

2) I've just reread that Dual-Classing paragraph too and it does use the words second class and two classes BUT again we're talking about a 5-6 line paragraph that is focusing on the FIRST Dual-Class - IT DOES NOT prohibit further Dual-Classing!



Again with the Paladin - That has NOTHING to do with Dual-Classing!
That is a rule about Paladin stats!

You roll 18 Dex and 17 Cha on your Paladin and you are quite capable of Dual-Classing your Paladin into a Paladin Rogue!
You roll 18 Dex and 17 Cha on your Rogue, You choose to be Lawful Good and you then decide you want to Dual-Class into Paladin there is NO Rule to stop you from doing so!

Paladin requirements make Dual Classing more than once incredibly unlikely BUT if you roll 18 Cha, 17 Int and 17 Dex on your Paladin there is NO Rule to stop you from 1st Dual Classing into Wizard and then Dual Classing again once your Wizard levels have surpassed your previous number of Paladin levels into Rogue!
So....If you started out as a Paladin, decided to Dual Class into Wizard at Lvl 19, then upon reaching 20 Wizard decided to Dual Class again into Rogue you would need to reach Lvl 21 Rogue to have all of your abilities!
You would then be 19/20/21!



Now back to Multiclassing - Fighter/Mage/Thief is a very well known Multiclass available to Elves and H-Elves BUT there is only one other 3way multiclass combination allowed in the PHB and that is only available to H-Elves {Ftr/Mage/Clr}.
The Vast majority of Multiclassed Characters only had 2 Classes!
Just like the Vast majority of Dual-Classed Characters only had 2 {That doesn't mean 3 was not allowed!}.

[Chai]

I think this is what Fran is talking about:

Dual-Class Benefits and Restrictions Only humans can be dual-classed characters. To be dual-classed, the character must have scores of 15 or more in the prime requisites of his first class and scores of 17 or more in the prime requisites of any classes he switches to.

Taken from PHB 2nd ED PDF. Sorry didn't have time to make a SS of it. But it's easily found on Google.

yes, but then completely waffling on stat requirements, saying the DM doesn't have to use it, which can be stated for every single D&D rule in existence.

[Axeyu]

If you can come up with a build that is equal or superior to absolutely everything compared to another build with no disadvantage whatsoever, then the second build is bad.

Reread my posts knowing that I perfectly understand that and agree to 100%.

[Darkmits]

Why does 2) not apply to the pure ranger as well, if he can do some things better than the multiclass? Pures get versatility too, you know.

If Rng20 can do stuff better than a multiclass, then what should those things be outside of its designed specialisation?

Both are focusing on it. There is no fallacy there.

Both are focusing on it, and at the same time one excels in sneak attack, the other excels at damage with spells. So should a Rog/Wiz 10/10 have the disarming capabilities of a Rog20 or a Wiz20, and at the same time the sneak attack die of Rog20 and at the same time the spell damage of Wiz20?

Multiclasses can focus too. Just because you don't want them to be able to does not change that.

If a multiclass focuses on something to achieve the same result as a pure, there is no problem. If a multiclass focuses on something and becomes better at every single aspect of the pure (not just one, every), then there is a design flaw.

If players who group are better off with pure builds then they lose out on 90% of the character customization.

No they don't. They only do if they go for the absolute 100% optimal, treating everything else, even 99,9% of maximum theoretical potential, as miasma. This is what you see in World First class guilds, not in your average everyday player.

Here is the straw man:
"But you can't ask that this build should also be providing the best damage, best trapping, best healing and most avoidance out of all possible builds at the same time. It is called "Jack of all trades, master of none", not "Jack of all trades, master of all""

I don't see how it is a strawman. It's a hyperbole with the use of the 'all' word to convery my point. Straw man is when someone changes the subject entirely to discredit their opponent in an argument. It would be strawman if I said for example "You like multiclass so you're wrong".

[Axeyu]

The disconnect between what I'm saying and what you are reading is huge. This is pointless.

[FranOhmsford]

There seems to be some confusion between rule zero versus rule as written. Whats in the book is rule as written. The DM allowing something or disallowing something is rule zero. Your Dm allowing you to do whatever you want is fine, but that's not whats written in the books.

This has nothing to do with Rule Zero!

The rule as stated by you is a Requirement - This is NOT THE SAME THING as a Prohibition!

If you meet the requirement then yes THEN the DM can Rule Zero and say NO!
BUT
The PHB does not prohibit Dual-Classing a Paladin!
The PHB does not prohibit Dual-Classing 3 separate Classes!

There is no statement in the PHB that you can ONLY Dual-Class once!


The DM if going by the rule in the PHB is NOT using Rule Zero!
Rule Zero would be against what it says in the PHB!
Now the DM can say "It doesn't specifically say you can so you can't" BUT the DM can also say "It doesn't specifically say you can't so you can"
both of these could easily come under either Rule as Written OR Rule Zero
Because the PHB is not specific!

[Pnumbra]

As if multi-classes will ever go away...

This is true, but it doesn't diminish the truth that multi-class builds are a broken in DDO. When a 12/8/2 can out perform a 20, something is off. Nothing wrong with the idea of multi-classing - Elminster is a wizard who wields a longsword, even Gandalf wielded a longsword. This problem is the synergy between classes and class powers. Holy Sword is fine until a Barbarian or Kensi fighter gets hold of it. Did anyone ever think about the consequences of these Frankenstein builds? Sure they are fun, a caster wearing heavy armor with DR 30 is a blast, but it is not good for the game - and that is what we should be focusing on. Individual preferences and likes aside, to much of a good thing is a bad thing. Not to mention, it makes no sense outside of power gaming.

If you allow players to capitalize on unintended affects, then they will. The player base doesn't know what is best for DDO; they only know what is best for themselves - me included. But allowing us to have our way with any and every class and class ability is insulting and damaging to the game. Builds have little to no limitations thus no tangible consequence.

Pure classes represent dedication to one's art. Your power grows and you stand a pillar of your art...not! A multi-class can out perform a pure class easily. If it wasn't true, you would not have many of them. Again, I understand the concept behind multi-classing but wow, what a misstep. Currently most players are all playing a minor variation of the same old thing. What are all these characters? They are nameless DPS shells.

Well, that's my take on things. Agree or disagree, nothing will change, so...play and have fun while it last.

[bartharok]

This has nothing to do with Rule Zero!

The rule as stated by you is a Requirement - This is NOT THE SAME THING as a Prohibition!

If you meet the requirement then yes THEN the DM can Rule Zero and say NO!
BUT
The PHB does not prohibit Dual-Classing a Paladin!
The PHB does not prohibit Dual-Classing 3 separate Classes!

There is no statement in the PHB that you can ONLY Dual-Class once!


The DM if going by the rule in the PHB is NOT using Rule Zero!
Rule Zero would be against what it says in the PHB!
Now the DM can say "It doesn't specifically say you can so you can't" BUT the DM can also say "It doesn't specifically say you can't so you can"
both of these could easily come under either Rule as Written OR Rule Zero
Because the PHB is not specific!

Umm.. The rule doesnt say that you cant have three classes. But it does say that you can have TWO classes. In no place does it say that you can have three.

So it up to interpretation by the DM. In my case i would judge that you can have only 2, since three or more are never mentioned.

[FranOhmsford]

yes, but then completely waffling on stat requirements, saying the DM doesn't have to use it, which can be stated for every single D&D rule in existence.

You what?

That is ultra specific!

That is Rule as Written

You're the one stating that it means Paladins can't Dual Class {at least I hope that's what you're stating because the other option is that you're stating there's a rule that prohibits players from playing a Paladin BECAUSE you as the DM won't allow them to have a Stat of 17? Tell me that's not what you're saying?}.

You're the one going on about watching people's rolls and making sure they can't play a Paladin unless they have a 17 Cha!
Well what happens when one guy at your table rolls 18, 14, 16, 17, 16, 17 then tells you he wants to create a Paladin then tells you at Lvl 7 that he wants to Dual-Class into Wizard - He HAS the Stats!
You're the one then invoking Rule Zero!

BTW that 18 is useless to him for Dual Classing because there IS a Rule prohibiting Dual Classing Fighter with Paladin - It's in the Paladin's Handbook rather than the PHB so if you won't use that Book you're again using Rule Zero!



P.S. Page 45 of the Original 2nd Ed. Players Handbook {I know you're using the updated version Chai from your Screenshot but I'm sure you can find this paragraph:

The restrictions in the previous two paragraphs last until the character reaches a higher level in his new class than his maximum level in any of his previous classes. At that point, both restrictions are dropped: The character gains the abilities of his previous classes without jeopardizing his experience points for the adventure........................................

There you go: Rule as Written for Dual Classing
I've Bolded the pertinent bits {the italics are in there anyway}.

[FranOhmsford]

Umm.. The rule doesnt say that you cant have three classes. But it does say that you can have TWO classes. In no place does it say that you can have three.

So it up to interpretation by the DM. In my case i would judge that you can have only 2, since three or more are never mentioned.

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

P.S. Page 45 of the Original 2nd Ed. Players Handbook {I know you're using the updated version Chai from your Screenshot but I'm sure you can find this paragraph:

The restrictions in the previous two paragraphs last until the character reaches a higher level in his new class than his maximum level in any of his previous classes. At that point, both restrictions are dropped: The character gains the abilities of his previous classes without jeopardizing his experience points for the adventure........................................

There you go: Rule as Written for Dual Classing
I've Bolded the pertinent bits {the italics are in there anyway}.

[redoubt]

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

That is not what was said.

you are getting argumentative with people who are asking for balance between pure and multi and it is making you look unreasonable.

You should read your own signature.