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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4740716" data-attributes="member: 5143">Not really.  I know the difference, I've seen a lot of characters who managed to multiclass their way into breadth without any depth at all.  My character had both.  I could cast 9th level spells.  I had the same DCs on my spells as did the wizard in our group.  Due to my spells, I had the same(or within 1) attack bonus as the fighter in our group.  I had the same number of attacks, since I had a 17 BAB.I think my only thing I actually lost out on compared to either a pure classed fighter or a pure classed caster was maybe a couple of spells per day(the most important of which was one less 9th level spell) and a +1 or so bonus to hit.  Both of which were made up for easily by the damage I did.Depends on what those feats do.  If 25 of them add pluses to hit that stack with each other, 25 of them add pluses to AC that stack, and the other 50 add pluses to damage that stack with each others, that character will certainly be a lot more powerful than any other 6-8 character.  Obviously, that's impossible.  But it was possible using all the published books to find a bonus with almost every feat if you looked hard enough.I am aware of those characters and I've harped on some of my friends for playing those characters.  The guy who thought he was awesome because he was a scout/warmage and he could move and fire a spell off and add 2d6 damage with the spell.  Meanwhile, he was casting 2nd level spells at 8th level.My general rule is that if your highest level spell is more than 1 level below a wizard of your level or you get more than 3 BAB away from a fighter of your level, then you are disadvantaged in either spellcasting or fighting.  (Which, of course, means that you shouldn't be fighting in melee with a single classed Rogue at 20th level, BTW)  If you remain with those guidelines, you are still a legitimate melee character or caster.It took a lot of work and a lot of careful multiclassing, but I managed to create a character who had both.  Mostly to prove it could be done.  I don't think I sucked at combat.  I actually caused both the fighter and wizard in our group to ask the DM to let them roll up new characters.  They both felt useless in the group because of how much I overshadowed them in combat(as a warmage, my out of combat magic was very limited).I learned a lesson about when to draw the line in terms of power gaming.  The DM wasn't happy with me and devised a way to kill me off(an improved invisibility'd dragon who grappled me with a bonus so impossibly high that there was no escape, used that spell that I'm forgetting the name of that makes all his attacks touch attacks for one round and then Power Attacked full for a couple of rounds straight.  It could have killed anyone in the party that way, powergamed or not.  In fact, it killed 3 of us before the rest took it down.  I just died first because the DM had it ignore everyone else in order to take me down).  Plus, the other players in the group weren't happy about quite the level I had taken my character.  I apologized and wrote up a normal strength character to replace him.This is true.  Because it was much easier to create a sucky character than it was a good one using multiclassing.  But it was certainly possible to use certain multiclasses to be better than a single class character.  Nearly any fighter with at least 1 level of barbarian was significantly more powerful than one without that level.  I've seen fighter X/sorcerer 1 multiclasses with carefully chosen 1st level spells that made them much better than single class fighters.But for every one of these insights I saw, I saw at least five characters that were 2 Cleric/5 Bard/1 Fighter/1 Rogue mixes.</blockquote>

Verification