single class or multiclass?

[yilduz]

Which do you prefer and why?
I'm not talking about prestige classes, just regular classes.

[The Black Knight]

I play as mainly casters, and as everyone knows, the first (and fifth) commandment of optimization is "Thou shalt not give up caster levels"

But for all other types I like a bit of multiclassing.

[Azon Blackheart]

Single class as a rule.

Less complicated and you get the full benefit of the class, not just a shared benefit with another class.

[rynyth]

Always tends to be single classes for me ....unless i go for prestige's

[RevLemmon]

Yea same here always single class except prestige classes. Mystic Thurge was a pretty good prestige class for a caster if I remember it right.

[The Black Knight]

Apr 22, 2008 22:03:16 GMT -5 RevLemmon said:

Yea same here always single class except prestige classes. Mystic Thurge was a pretty good prestige class for a caster if I remember it right.

Eh, only if you were able to do same nice feat choice and cheese your way in by barely taking any levels in Cleric/Wizard. Otherwise the caster level loss was a HUGE blow.

[yilduz]

That depends on the type of character it is. I've played spellcasters in the past, but I've NEVER played a character that fully relied on his spells. Nor has that ever been a main focus for any character. When I play characters that cast spells, they're always characters that use spells to make their other abilities better, like Yilduz, my rogue that uses illusion spells to make himself invisible or get away from danger. He isn't a fireball mage.
I had a cleric that was a good example, too. He put a lot of focus into physical strength and power. He didn't rely on his spells, but Bull's Strength was always a nice little bonus.

I've always felt like a character that only relies on spells limits himself.

Then again, my Cleric was made to be the badass leader guy of the party, and Yilduz was made to survive a single player campaign. They had to be well-rounded.

[The Black Knight]

Apr 22, 2008 23:21:09 GMT -5 yilduz said:

That depends on the type of character it is. I've played spellcasters in the past, but I've NEVER played a character that fully relied on his spells. Nor has that ever been a main focus for any character. When I play characters that cast spells, they're always characters that use spells to make their other abilities better, like Yilduz, my rogue that uses illusion spells to make himself invisible or get away from danger. He isn't a fireball mage.
I had a cleric that was a good example, too. He put a lot of focus into physical strength and power. He didn't rely on his spells, but Bull's Strength was always a nice little bonus.

I've always felt like a character that only relies on spells limits himself.

Then again, my Cleric was made to be the badass leader guy of the party, and Yilduz was made to survive a single player campaign. They had to be well-rounded.

I find multi-classing as a Wizard rarely works for me. I prefer to let my minions do the fighting, or manipulate everything. But yeah, Clerics are GREAT at buffing themselves, and make much better Fighters than Fighters do. Druids are good at it too.

[Deedlit]

multi class is plech. I think you weaken yourself by doing that, and plus its much too complicated for a simple mind like mine. I prefer to go single class. but I think once I get the chance to play all the classes I am interested in, I might try my hand at multi classing just to see what its like. with plenty of assistance of coarse.

[Mr. Kite]

[Jon Irenicus]

QFT^

[Deedlit]

where the hell do you get that stuff?! LOL. yeesh. I want that as a poster. Nothing screams "NERD!" more. MUST HAVE!!