Pureclass Love

[LadyInLinen]

Something I've always wanted to see a server do, but never really had a discussion on: Love for pure-classes. Bare with me.

Generally speaking, multiclass characters are going to be better than single-class characters. Just picking up a level in a second class is an immediate boost to your saves, and usually provides you with access to new skills in addition to new abilities. Theoretically, the cost of this is decreased power of your primary class but in practice this isn't always the case. In my experience, they generally break down as follows taking into account that Ravenloft requires effectively 5 levels in a secondary class:

Pure Tier
You're generally better off taking these pure than anything else.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Paladin*, Monk*
*Required to be Pure Class, so moot point.

Strong Incentive Tier
Completely viable contenders as pure class, though there's an argument for dipping 5 in another class.
Cleric, Druid, Rogue

Theoretically, Yes Tier
Classes that have some incentive to maintain pure, but dipping into a few levels of something else is a serious improvement
Barbarians, Bards, Rangers (maybe)

No Particular Reason Tier
Is this ever pure-classed?
...Fighters.

Pure Tier classes seem completely fine in their current implementation. It's a serious sacrifice to leave the main class for a few levels (or impossible). The Strong Incentive Tier is the sweet spot. You can certainly dip into other classes from those, but you're giving up something important to do so. Rogue is probably the weakest contender as it does perfectly well multiclassing but there are definite advantages to sticking pure rogue.

Theoretically Yes is where we start seeing some classes show their weakness.

Bards are arguably in the Strong Incentive tier, but it's so common to see them take a few levels of Fighter or Barbarian to round them out that the number of multi-class characters far outweighs the pure ones I've seen. The biggest argument would be losing access to level 6 spells on Ravenloft, which may or may not be a big deal. Bardsong could be an argument as well, but the difference between a level 15 bard's song and a level isn't as mechanically huge.

Barbarians theoretically work as pure class, they at least continue gaining mechanical bonuses from 15-20, but in practice this amounts to slightly increased damage reduction (4/- vs 2/-), a slightly increased reflex save vs traps,  and 2 extra Greater Rages per day. Not terrible, but taking 5 levels of Fighter for Weapon Spec, extra feats, and heavy armor or 5 levels of Rogue for Tumble, UMD, and 3d6 sneak attack damage (both options improving saves) seems like it heavily favors the multi-class Barbarian.

Rangers are the weakest in this tier. The difference between a level 15 and a level 20 ranger is effectively +1 to favored enemy damage, HD on an animal companion that (at least on servers I've played) isn't capable of taking enemies that level anyway, and slightly increased duration/castings of their relatively unimpressive spell list. The thing that makes this one a real kick in the butt is that the archetype people want to play as a ranger is generally more skill-based, meaning that you'd actually be a better ranger by taking fewer ranger levels and more rogue levels. Rogue synergizes so well for this class it's hard to argue not taking it - 3d6 sneak attack damage, a whole mess of extra skill points (that rangers desperately need), access to Tumble/UMD, and an increased saves.

Then you have Fighters. A level 20 fighter would have an extraordinary number of feats, but that's about it. On a server where feats are plentiful (that's awesome, by the way) there's no reason not to multiclass a fighter into something else, usually rogue.

Would it be beyond consideration for some of the classes that are the weakest contenders for pure-class to get some kind of boost to make it more attractive? Particularly since anything that isn't a dedicated spell caster tends to be better off with a few levels of rogue or fighter sprinkled in (extra skill points, sneak attack, or heavy armor, weapon spec, and better saves either way). Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger seem like they get the worst of it, since they all benefit so massively from mixing in rogue for sneak attack/tumble/UMD.

What I would really like to see is something to kick in for these at 16+ that would provide a good incentive to play a fighter, barb, or ranger (and to a lesser extent, Bard) as a pure class. I have no idea what that would be, but I think it would be worth talking about.

[IllusoryWitch]

I am only replying to state that I am in complete agreement with this, and it would be nice to see something like this implemented. I've been toying about with nwnscript, and one of the first things I've been working on has been Pure Class Incentives. Little things that grant boons to taking full levels in a given class.  It is theoretically completely possible, as the feat.2da has this nice little Max Level feature to take feat. That, with other per-requesties can be put together in such a way as to assure that all levels must be basically taken in one class to gain the benefit.

Very good suggestion and break down of classes.

[DrXavierTColtrane]

Question: What is the *social* incentive for wanting characters to pure class?

That is, assuming your premises are all true, LadyInLinen, it remains that nothing stops a fighter (for example) from multi-classing. A player may want to single class because that's what the player wants to do, but why does it behove the rules / system to reward the player's choice? Why is it preferable (from the server perspective) to have more pure fighters and fewer 15/5 splits, for example?

I'm not making an argument against your suggestion. My question is based on the presumption that (as with the recent assassin discussion) any class or character configuration can be enhanced. But it seems to me that in devoting the resources to doing so there ought to be some other reason than making that class / character build more attractive, because that inherently diminishes the relative appeal of other classes/configurations.

In short, what would having more purists bring to the table?

[EO]

We're actually going to adjust a few things for some classes such as fighter/barbarian and ranger. Rangers, in our next hak update, will get HiPS at level 17, which is a nice incentive go level 20 ranger. Fighters and barbarians I think are supposed to get access to some epic feats after a certain level, thus giving more of a reason to pick them.

[IllusoryWitch]

Question: What is the *social* incentive for wanting characters to pure class?

That is, assuming your premises are all true, LadyInLinen, it remains that nothing stops a fighter (for example) from multi-classing. A player may want to single class because that's what the player wants to do, but why does it behove the rules / system to reward the player's choice? Why is it preferable (from the server perspective) to have more pure fighters and fewer 15/5 splits, for example?

I'm not making an argument against your suggestion. My question is based on the presumption that (as with the recent assassin discussion) any class or character configuration can be enhanced. But it seems to me that in devoting the resources to doing so there ought to be some other reason than making that class / character build more attractive, because that inherently diminishes the relative appeal of other classes/configurations.

In short, what would having more purists bring to the table?

Diversity, perhaps, and oddly, would be why it would be more preferable. To take the maximum levels in a class should either make you an expert in a thing, or an embodiment of what that class portrays. With casters, this is easily seen; pure classed casters will have a higher spell level than those that multi-class, and will be able to perform feats of magic that a multi classed spell caster would not. That is the tangible difference. With non casters, it is not as tangible. By this argument, it would not behoove the server to 'reward' a choice, but in making said choice more readily apparent. Let me pose you this counter-question of a sort; Can you tell me, or give me examples of how a 15 Fighter/5 Rogue's RP would differ from that of a pure class fighter (Or you can replace Ranger for Fighter, or Barbarian, for that matter), or if it should differ at all? Would it simply be a 'dip' into a class for skills, and, if that is the case, would the use of such skills be ample showcase of "Rping" that multiclassed character?

I'm , likewise, not trying to be combative here, I just want to know what you think the 'social' difference between a pure classed character and one who multiclasses even is.

[BahamutZ3RO]

I'm gonna be that guy and point out that monks and paladins CAN multiclass into Prestige Classes. ...Are PrCs getting any love in the hak?!

[LadyInLinen]

Question: What is the *social* incentive for wanting characters to pure class?

That is, assuming your premises are all true, LadyInLinen, it remains that nothing stops a fighter (for example) from multi-classing. A player may want to single class because that's what the player wants to do, but why does it behove the rules / system to reward the player's choice? Why is it preferable (from the server perspective) to have more pure fighters and fewer 15/5 splits, for example?

I'm not making an argument against your suggestion. My question is based on the presumption that (as with the recent assassin discussion) any class or character configuration can be enhanced. But it seems to me that in devoting the resources to doing so there ought to be some other reason than making that class / character build more attractive, because that inherently diminishes the relative appeal of other classes/configurations.

In short, what would having more purists bring to the table?

Nothing stops a fighter from playing as a pure class, but at the same time nothing stops them from putting all of their points into Charisma and Wisdom or spending all their skill points in Perform. The number of ways someone can make their class less good at their role is staggering in variety. That isn't the goal of the discussion though.

The heart of the argument is not "why would it be preferable that people do X over Y?" It is a discussion about equalizing the incentive to do X over Y.

Mechanics will always influence the decisions people make in their characters. If you have option A and option B and option A is inherently better, the majority of people will take option A. The goal of the discussion is to look at ways in which to make A and B roughly equal. I am of the mindset that diversity is always a good and healthy thing. Arguing that making B an equally viable choice "diminishes the relative appeal of other classes/configurations" only works if you're going to present an argument for why A should be an objectively better choice. I can and have been presenting the argument to the contrary:

If we assume classes mean anything at all, then we also operate under the assumption that the more levels you take in that class, the better you should be at doing the thing that the class is meant to do. The inherent balance of multi-classing is that you get more diverse capabilities at the expense of weakening your primary function.

This actually works in the case of the upper-tier classes. Wizards keep getting better at being a wizard for dedicating themselves to wizardry. It doesn't work as well for the lower-tier classes. If I dedicate myself to being a Fighter, I should be a better fighter for dedicating myself specifically to the path. A paragon at fighting. If I make a pure ranger, I should be a paragon of rangerhood for being a pure ranger. I shouldn't get better at being a ranger by taking fewer levels of ranger, which is the current situation.

In closing to your direct question:
The social benefit becomes a promotion of healthy diversity among character roles and concepts, as well as more consistent design overall. The more you can make different choices equally viable, the more people will be inclined to roll up characters for the image they had in mind than the mechanical necessities of those choices.

[DrXavierTColtrane]

IllusoryWitch:

To take the maximum levels in a class should either make you an expert in a thing, or an embodiment of what that class portrays.

Agreed, but do you think a 20th-level fighter is not "more" of a fighter than a 15/5 split already?

I just want to know what you think the 'social' difference between a pure classed character and one who multiclasses even is.

Well, I think your "diversity" argument is a legitimate one provided there is evidence that the server has an under-representation of X (X being whichever purists the server doesn't seem to have much of). In LiL's initial post, however, I didn't read such an argument.

For example, suppose almost everyone on the server kept choosing Elf characters. Given the setting the PTBs would like to have, then that would seem to indicate a tweak was in order to make humans more attractive and Elves less so.

If a goal of the server is to have a robust number of purists, likewise it makes sense to enhance the appeal of remaining pure (which by necessity lessens the appeal of multi-classing). My point is that everyone (i.e., all builds) want "love"--to borrow the thread's word--so some means of saying why one build should be elevated relative to others ought to be provided.

LiL:

It is a discussion about equalizing the incentive to do X over Y.

It's pretty tricky making two incentives exactly equal. The most objective way (it seems to me)  of telling whether they are relatively equal is looking at behavior / outcomes. So, same question as to Illusory Witch: Do you perceive a shortage of purists on the server?

The  reason the "why should it be preferable that people do X over Y" question is relevant in that resources are limited.

Otherwise (as with the assassin discussion), it just becomes an argument about this build needs to be made stronger and--given that at its most basic the server is a game--it is essentially a rules change that some will like and some won't. IMO it's much better if one can make an argument that the *game* will be better for the change.

[McNastea]

Personally I've always found multi-classing to be one of the things that makes nwn more enjoyable and keeps me playing-it creates so many more possibilities for characters to represent their unique self in a way I just don't feel you get from other games. Most other games I play, a rogue is a rogue is a rogue with very little if any difference.

So, sure, maybe a pure class should be the best at the one thing they do-but I think the arguement could be made that anyone who goes to lvl 20 in one class already is the best at what they do. Mages get the top spells and buffs, barbarians get the most hp's, greater rage and damage reduction. Fighters get by far the most feats, so they can have pretty literally every combat related feat they want-that pretty well embodies them being the best trained fighter right? Druids can shift to some really unique forms you don't get to see people in very often and, although some of their spells are silly and unused, they get some really nice magic as well. A ranger will have a significant bonus against their favored enemies at lvl 20, the same bab as a fighter but with the ability to invest heavily in to stealth just like a rogue, paladins and monks of course have to remain "pure classed" (except for PrC) but a monk gains tremendous power at lvl 20 as well plus they get glowing eyes so that's neat. paladins are all around bosses anyway so who even really needs to multi class them  as for clerics I"ve always thought it was silly to multi-class them but some people do it so eh, you weaken yourself in the long run imo, a pure cleric is stronger than a multi-classed one in the end. Bards start becoming very powerful in terms of their song/curse about lvl 15 so if you stop taking bard lvls to invest in others you miss out on the strongest lvls of your main class ability I think. Bard song doesn't excite you? I've seen it drastically change the course of a fight many times so it should!

Anyway I'm sure most of that was skimmed over-my point is that pure classes -do- get a benefit from remaining pure. The thing is, lots of people like being able to do a little bit of other things instead of being the best at one thing. Multi-classing makes all the characters unique anyway, so I think it's nice and don't see any real problem with things as they are.

[herkles]

How many people get to level 20 anyways here?

[McNastea]

How many people get to level 20 anyways here?

Probably not that many! I was just pointing out that someone who pure classes all the way to 20 already is the best at the thing they do, they just have a narrower set of skills.

[Merry Munchkin]

On some other servers (not PoTM) I have played pure classes, solely for the challenge of playing them.

On a related note, there were some high-magic servers that got rather easy to run around solo on, so for a while as a personal challenge I made pure classes that equipped only crafted gear (to the extent the server supported crafted gear for all equipment slots).  That spun the challenge level up another notch, but then again I sort of enjoy making things hard for myself just for the hell of it. 

If anyone might feel PoTM is not "quite" challenging enough, I will posit the following dare -- roll up a character, and use either only mundane gear, or crafted gear.  Any found gear that you keep must be non-magical only.  (I could not successfully do this, so I am not daring anyone in the sense of being boastful -- just throwing out a fun idea for a completely self-motivated challenge).   

[Ercvadasz]

On some other servers (not PoTM) I have played pure classes, solely for the challenge of playing them.

On a related note, there were some high-magic servers that got rather easy to run around solo on, so for a while as a personal challenge I made pure classes that equipped only crafted gear (to the extent the server supported crafted gear for all equipment slots).  That spun the challenge level up another notch, but then again I sort of enjoy making things hard for myself just for the hell of it.  

If anyone might feel PoTM is not "quite" challenging enough, I will posit the following dare -- roll up a character, and use either only mundane gear, or crafted gear.  Any found gear that you keep must be non-magical only.  (I could not successfully do this, so I am not daring anyone in the sense of being boastful -- just throwing out a fun idea for a completely self-motivated challenge).  

As a cleric this actually does not prove that challenging.
Most of the folks send me back a tell with smileys when i tell them what Gergely's items are.
And if i would have given him 13 str, he would be a deadly slinger.
I actually could do without any of the "magical items" he has. (Morninglordian robe, sure shot(Magic weapon works on sling), shield of dawn(+2 ac vs undead!), and a magistars ring:P)
Would think the same goes with wizard, sorcerer, and perhaps bard.
But try that as a ranger. Even with blade thirst you will have huge troubles.(not enough spells, not enough carry weight, not enough skill points, no enough damage, cant bypass DR and the list goes on:P)

[Arawn]

Not speaking as a DM here, but as a longtime player of this server and NWN more generally. PotM's system, and multiclassing, makes more diverse, interesting characters than I've ever seen on any other server. Where else can you expect a fighter to have a random skill like picking locks or using magical devices? This is a feature, not a bug.

[Syl]

I've enjoyed making pure classes. The only classes that are set in stone on the server to most likely be pure classes are pallies and monks (excluding PrCs) but this is because the bonuses they get can be abused... IE a rogue pally combo... [shakes head] total contradiction.. But thats not importent.

I will say i've played on the server for 2 years or so now... Haven't checked when i joined.. and probably my highest level character is a pure rogue and she is at 16 almost 17... Has to be probably the hardest thing to do to get a Rogue that high level lol and she is ALL rogue... no bard.. no wizard or fighter or PrC.. just.. Rogue... Jill of Trades if you will. I'm looking forward to seeing pure fighter and barbs getting access to the epic feats if they get high enough levels. [drolls]

I am not against multiclassing either.. Going pure class gives you benifits on their own and so does multiclassing. Normally most classes or players even in Table Top... Multiclass to either A..fit the RP or B.. make up for skills that are not very good.. IE.. Rogue will mix in fighter because they have a weak fort save... or a fighter might splash in a bit of cleric or wizard for some Arcane/divine fighting and recive more will to their save.

Most splash in rogue for the evasion and skill points. allowing them to dump points into open lock or disable and tumble for AC.  no one is in the wrong each person plays their class diffrently.

[Telkar]

One cool pure rogue thing in 3.5 DnD is that they are basically immune to sneak attacks from rogues that are 4 levels below them or more. That's one incentive to take it pure, but might be difficult to do.

About ranger HiPS. I think it's only supposed to work in outdoors natural areas in 3.5, but meh, guess that's also difficult to limit. Would be cool though.

While not adding pure-class incentive, I'd liketo see things like monk unarmed AB bonus fix and RDD blindsense with those hak updates. ^^

[Arcibel]

Would it be beyond consideration for some of the classes that are the weakest contenders for pure-class to get some kind of boost to make it more attractive? Particularly since anything that isn't a dedicated spell caster tends to be better off with a few levels of rogue or fighter sprinkled in (extra skill points, sneak attack, or heavy armor, weapon spec, and better saves either way). Fighter, Barbarian, and Ranger seem like they get the worst of it, since they all benefit so massively from mixing in rogue for sneak attack/tumble/UMD.

What I would really like to see is something to kick in for these at 16+ that would provide a good incentive to play a fighter, barb, or ranger (and to a lesser extent, Bard) as a pure class. I have no idea what that would be, but I think it would be worth talking about.

Well,well...
I think that pure classes could add 1 more feat by level over 10 and could choose feats from all other classes(including prestige classes)but with limitations, that could be that you can't choose some exclusive feats from other pure classes/prestige classes and you can't choose feat from classes that "opposes" to you.
Excluded: Sorcerer,wizard,paladin,monk.

EXAMPLE:

You have a Rogue level 13 with your added extra feat,but, you can't choose paladin feats o something like that(because this class "oppose" to you), you can choose feats from bard,sd, assasin but you can't choose "Death Attack" Why? it's an exclusive feat from this prestige class, same thing with bardic knowledge or bard song.