Is pure better than multi-class?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Tue May 14, 2002 1:49 pm

Pardon?

Bruce Lee · Post by **Bruce Lee** » Tue May 14, 2002 5:13 pm

Dual class is not always better then single class...
Not if you like to play Sorceror, Wildmage, Paladin, Ranger(kit), Monk, Bard, Barbarian and not if you like to be something other then human.
I really like multiclasses. Especially the halfling f/t, dwarven f/c and gnome and eleven f/m. I don't like dualclasses much because I just cannot stand the transition period.
I really like the singleclasses that gives you a multi class feel, Paladin and Bard.
So this doesn't make much sense really I guess but what I am trying to say is that dual and multiclasses are all very good but the most interesting (IMO) classes cannot be either dualed or multiclassed.

Esfafadro · Post by **Esfafadro** » Wed May 15, 2002 2:54 am

@frogus
I agree, in a small party you have to have dual-classed characters but it is not that important in a party with six persons.

lompo · Post by **lompo** » Wed May 15, 2002 7:41 am

Originally posted by Bruce Lee
Dual class is not always better then single class...
Not if you like to play Sorceror, Wildmage, Paladin, Ranger(kit), Monk, Bard, Barbarian and not if you like to be something other then human.

I agree, my favourite class is the inquisitor, but I was referring to single classes that can be dualled or multi, ans I agree with Astafas, with single class you can have an high level kit.
My reasoning was: which is the most powerfull combo, for example, between: a fighter and a mage single-class (eventually with kit), two fighter dualled to mage (with fighter kits) and two fighter-mages (the same reasoning can be made for other options like thief-mage or fighter/ranger-clerics etc)?
I think that in the long run (end of SoA and ToB) the first combo is less powerful and flexible than the other two.