Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 2936972" data-attributes="member: 3929">So a Clr4/PalX is terrible then, is it? You get quite a few slots for bonafide healing (which paladin spellcasting never really provides) you get a step up on the undead turning than other paladins, you lose out only on +1 BAB, you get self-buff spells like Eagle's Splendor and  Bull's Strenth, you get ally-boosting stuff like Lesser Restoration and Shield Other, you get a +4 to Will Saves (which, as a melee type, is the first kind of save spellcaster will throw at you until they realize your paladinhood), you get two domain powers, and you get a limited ability to cast cleric scrolls you wouldn't otherwise.You might not think it's optimal, but please, dispense with the offhand "Um. No. Not even close." nonsense.Which is another way of saying that we both agree that anything, no matter how powerful its potential, can be built poorly.If you want a build that's balanced with optimal builds, don't you tink that careful building is going to be required somewhere? What's odd is you later on say this:"XP penalty issues aside, any combination of Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue is easily viable, very powerful if built correctly.  Any.  Every...single...one.  Yes, all of them."...very powerful if built correctly...So why claim that Fighter, barbarian, ranger and rogue combinations, every ... single ... one ... will kick butt and take names if built correctly, and then deny noncaster/caster or caster/caster multiclasses that same benefit? You cry that building them takes "careful building to work" and that's too weak, while noncaster/noncaster multiclassing is easy; it only needs to be "built correctly".What gives here?The only combination that is absolutely not equally viable using only the core rules is the caster/caster with even levels. And I'm not convinced that this combination really should be made equal: it disregards all pretenses to specialization (which a 4-person D&D party somewhat assumes) and sacrifices quality for quantity. If quantity has a quality all its own, then there you have it. And if you are willing to crack open a book other than the PhB, the DMG has the Mystic Theurge (which isn't narrowly focused) which will enhance your ability to create a surfeit of spells.And if you explicitly deny any "massive powergaming optimizations" (which by definition use the rules to pack as much power into a character as possible) then the player a) isn't going to care all that much that his character doesn't have as much power, because he doesn't want to engage in a "massive powergaming optimization" or b) the player hasn't become acquainted well enough with the rules to whip up an odd multiclass easily. Forbid that some builds take time to master! Shoot, I'd say the hardest character to live with and make interesting for 20 levels is a straight fighter. And it doesn't get much more vanilla than that.It matters as much as many, many, many of the possible stat assignment, feat choices and skill point allocations absolutely suck.Which is to say, no, I don't really think it does.If you want a particular multiclass to work (and by this I mean you want a character whose balliwick is modeled somewhere between two classes) then sometimes you'll have to work at it. Just like you shouldn't really be upset when your feat choices include Skill Focus: Profession (basketweaving) and Weapon Proficiency: Spoon.And some multiclass ideas are rubbish. "I want to have DC 30 or die gaze attacks, 9th level spells, and a +20 BAB" isn't going to happen, and the system shouldn't allow them. I think we can both agree that's the case. The rest is just arguing as to where that line should be drawn.Not all multiclass combinations are created equal. You should not be able to make a viable Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Dru1/Ftr1/Mnk1/Pal1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1.Do you agree with me there? If not, then there's nothing to argue about; we won't ever reach concensus.But if you do agree that there are some things that the system shouldn't be designed to allow, specifically because the cost of allowing that combination might very well mean that othercombinations become that much more powerful or broken, only then we should continue talking.Is it such a bad thing that a Clr10/Wiz10 eats it? Ask yourself what the character has done in his lifetime to get to the middle ranges of two classes. Two entirely different schools, two different kinds of training, two different flavors of magic. Why should he be as effective as someone who has focued his entire life on a single pursuit?Bard & Rogue:Both able to be stealthyBoth able to be scoutyBoth able to be diplomaticyOverlap of skills and both skill monkeysTwo favored savesNeither uses medium or heavy armor or shieldsBoth support fightersI don't see how you can say they don't synergize at all, when the abilities of both classes can function together to do a few things very well.And no, the other combination doesn't synergize, but that was the point.Frankly I think it shows that you missed how the bard and rogue can synergize very well. In a discussion about multiclassing and the inability of some classes to synergize with others that inability can color your outlook and your opinions quite a bit.</blockquote>

Verification