Has anyone else noticed the -vast- increase of multiclass ranger/rogues on the server recently? Its reached a point where I think only one or two rangers and rogues are flat or multiclassed into somthing else. For me this doesn't make much sense, I beleive that rangers and rogues shouldn't work too well together at all. Rogues are supposed to represent being stealthy/sneaky in an urban enviroment, whilst rangers are supposed to represent the same in a wilderness enviroment. After all, thats why rangers get features such as track (which is somthing rarely used in urban areas) and divine spells from nature gods, whilst rogues get class skills such as pick lock (how many rangers living in the wild do you see being able to pick a lock?) The two seem polor to me yet that doesn't seem to stop so many players taking advantage of this. What do the rest of you think?

It swings, some days I see a billion paladins (multiclass or other), other days it's all wizard./sorcs or warrior types, sometimes it's religion wars with 15 clerics... Theres a heap of fighter/rogues on as well some days. As for multiclass rogues are not unusual at all, it's one of the most effective class to multiclass into. (or from).

As for multiclassing theres a few ways you can approach it IC.. firstly it can be the tale of that characters history.. they were once an X and through this and that became a Y.

Another way to approach it is that the ROGUE is simply a representative of somebody with a particular skill set, this is how you get LG rogues.. they arent thieves, they dont assassinate people for money. They may be a scout or a spy etc.

Rangers as well do not necessarily have to be the "nature loving" types.. You may argue they wont get spells if they arent, but animal empathy could be taken as simply a skill that a character has, something they've learned.. Same with the two weapon combat benefits rangers get, again it's just a skill. Likewise with tracking.

If you make use of the spell a ranger gets at LEVEL 4 then you'll have to have a reasonable excuse for it.

Another way to approach it is that the ROGUE is simply a representative of somebody with a particular skill set,

animal empathy could be taken as simply a skill that a character has, something they've learned

As for multiclassing theres a few ways you can approach it IC.. firstly it can be the tale of that characters history.. they were once an X and through this and that became a Y.

Rangers as well do not necessarily have to be the "nature loving" types

Who cares?

I recall the day it was impossible to log on without a quarter of the players being paladins. It comes and goes.

Personal hates : Monk / Somethings and Druid / Somethings

I don't dislike ranger/rogues because, y'know, they ain't half as effective as fighter/rogues or barbarian/rogues. Feel free to multiclass like this, guys! (though pure rangers will get certain advantages if they get to higher levels!)

EfU abides by the canon multi-class restrictions, which means that ranger/rogues are an acceptable multi-class. They even make sense to me really, although dual-wielding ranger1/rogue- is a particular build that I find rather highly unbalanced and do not like to see.

I also quite dislike fighter/barbarians, since I think such combinations dilute the nature of both classes.

There are a few other builds that are unfortunate to see, but I think most of them are covered by the canon multi-class restrictions.

Howland,

What do you find unbalancing about ranger/ rogue dual wields? Does sneak attack apply to both hits? I would imagine the to hit penalties of a low level type might be prohibitive.

Fighter/ Barbarian may seem off, I guess I have always pictured it as a fighter who fought more savagely, rather than formally trained. Look to the character I guess, rather than the engine limits...unless it's just a give me rage and HP thang XD

Canon multi-class restrictions? Are they on the site, or do I have to pull out my PHB?

And in summary, does this mean my Svirf druid monk is out??? XD

Well, the 1stlvlRanger/Rogue mix basiclly incorperates Sneak attack to both hits, favoured enemy on top of that, and effectivly two feats for free since most rogues wear light armour anyway

The same applies with Fighter/Barberians. A barberian multiclassing into fighter instantly gets heavy armour proficency and a bonus feat, which again, makes little sense, since one trait of barberians is that they're not -meant- to have high AC, thats why they get D12 hit dice and rage

Just makes me feel all special and tingly inside when I play my rogue.

Ranger1/rogue is kind of shifty, since in most cases the characters don't seem to incorporate the ranger part into their roleplay.

But a more balanced ranger/rogue seems fine to me.

Multi-class restrictions mostly just apply to monks/druids/paladins as I recall.

druids cannot abide monks. i have no clue how you got that to work. druids find monks enigmatic and unable to change. **the hand book states that though on this server who knows?**

Ranger1/rogue is kind of shifty, since in most cases the characters don't seem to incorporate the ranger part into their roleplay.

Multi-class restrictions mostly just apply to monks/druids/paladins as I recall.

it does kinda annoy me to see the amount of character to take 1 lvl of a class like rogue. its often an excuse to get free feats and skill points - espcially when i fail to see a player implementing the classes into their character.

i would personally like to see some rules laid down against this. but i also understand this is a very low level server and this may not be a good option.

A lot of servers implement a minimum of 3 levels in any class you take. But seeing as the average level on this server is 5. It's not possible to do this. But it's obvious to see if someone is using a class for completely OOC reasons. Just got to keep your eyes open.

I made it onto the DM team on a Ranger/Rogue character.

Lawlz.

lol - dont u love things that are ironic?

bet u weren't a lvl 1 rogue or ranger >.> <.<

Nuclear Catastrophe Personal hates : Monk / Somethings and Druid / Somethings

The Barbarian/Fighter mix seems odd at first unless you consider and justify a character who was a Barbaric Lad that was later forced into Military service after his Village was assimilated into a larger, more organized group.

There is a story for everything, the key is to make it and develop it further.

On a tangent: Monk and Paladin multiclasses are dependant on Order, not deity.

I have no trouble reconciling Ranger levels with Rogue levels. Rogue is the most flexible class in D&D, and can be representative of many things.

I would have to say it depends on how the character is role-played. The first character I had on this server was a ranger/rogue. He was a ranger before being enslaved, then learned how to pick locks and such from another slave, enabling his escape. When he died he was Ra4/Ro4, and basically considered himself a dynamic ranger.

As far as the Monk/* combos, I think you should have to apply for membership in a surface Order before char creation, then follow the guidelines of that Order. This could also address the "dual-class" aspect of things (abandoning one class for another, never taking levels of the first class again).

Also...Is there even a monk order that allows Monk/Druid?

No.

Monk/Druids are exact opposites. There are no Cannon orders that allow the combination of these classes.

Barbarian/Fighter makes little sense even when justifed, becuase the only reason it was selected at level 1, was purely power reasons. If you go barbarian, you should be a barbarian. And if you are a barbarian, you should not be a fighter. Excuses can be made for anything, and even bad excuses wont keep people from playing them. So meh.

As for Ranger/Rogue. I personaly like that class combo for many Rp reasons, as long as the ranger levels continue to rise after that extremely unbalanced first level. Ranger 1 rogue ? Is less admirable.

Meh, i can only think of one ranger/rouge and a few concepts i had.

Also, it DOES work.

Ebok

Barbarian/Fighter makes little sense even when justifed, becuase the only reason it was selected at level 1, was purely power reasons. If you go barbarian, you should be a barbarian. And if you are a barbarian, you should not be a fighter. Excuses can be made for anything, and even bad excuses wont keep people from playing them. So meh.

Something's gone awry there.

Barbarian/Fighters can make sense, particularly, I think you'll find, when they're justified, since the sense factor is sort of a part of the justification in itself, believe it or not. And how can something be justified only for purely power reasons? I'm not sure I understand this first sentence at all. A few contradictions there.

There are no server rules against Barbarian/Fighters. You can have perfectly acceptable explanations for taking that class combo and I don't want players feeling as though they can't fully express their character's attributes by taking the relevant classes.

I've always taken a no-nonsense approach to players making other players feel inadequate with posts containing largely fallacious material/conjured up server rules/other such mockery and this thread is beginning to bleed into that area.

Please try to give friendly advice, rather than rules of thumb that bear little relevance to server rules of EfU.

[quote="Bindragon"][quote="Nuclear Catastrophe"]Personal hates : Monk / Somethings and Druid / Somethings The Monk class is best when pure, but there is conceptually nothing wrong whatsoever with a Monk/Cleric combo, especially if you are a follower of Ilmater!

The Barbarian/Fighter mix seems odd at first unless you consider and justify a character who was a Barbaric Lad that was later forced into Military service after his Village was assimilated into a larger, more organized group.

There is a story for everything, the key is to make it and develop it further.

Barbarian/Fighter? R.A.Salvatore's Wulfgar, nuff said.

Unless i spelt the name wrong...

Ebok Barbarian/Fighter makes little sense even when justifed, becuase the only reason it was selected at level 1, was purely power reasons. If you go barbarian, you should be a barbarian. And if you are a barbarian, you should not be a fighter. Excuses can be made for anything, and even bad excuses wont keep people from playing them. So meh.

The only difference between a barb and a fighter is the choice of power over technique, really. A barb's style is more mobile and concentrated on bashing through defences, where a fighter's is more based on technique and combinations. So a barb taking fighter levels makes a LOT more sense than a rog/ranger or rog/fighter, as the new skills he would have to learn are fairly minimal.

But really, it's each players' own character and for them to decide what class to take for each level. You don't tell me how to play my character and I won't tell you how to play yours.

[quote="Ladocicea"]I made it onto the DM team on a Ranger/Rogue character.

Lawlz.

how?

Harlstar

Ladocicea I made it onto the DM team on a Ranger/Rogue character.

Lawlz.

how?

Level seven in less than a week, and you have to kill ten players by then. It's the only way to truely show you understand the server's enviroment and you have the mechanics well enough under your belt to keep up with the DM client.

level seven in less then a week!?

With a Ranger/rouge?

You, sir, are THE

I love sarcasm. I don't know what else to say about that. By the way, my Monk/Druid has killed 11 people, but I don't want to DM. Sorry guys!

Ladocicea

Ebok Barbarian/Fighter makes little sense even when justifed, becuase the only reason it was selected at level 1, was purely power reasons. If you go barbarian, you should be a barbarian. And if you are a barbarian, you should not be a fighter. Excuses can be made for anything, and even bad excuses wont keep people from playing them. So meh.

Barbarian/Fighters can make sense, particularly, I think you'll find, when they're justified, since the sense factor is sort of a part of the justification in itself, believe it or not. And how can something be justified only for purely power reasons? I'm not sure I understand this first sentence at all. A few contradictions there.

And should have rephrased to avoid confusion and the resulting ire. In my opnion, most barbarian fighters are chosen because it is an effective build. Thus, people will go out of their way to make up a story that makes it more or less sensical. Still, most of the time- it is chosen firstly for that power. Many may have a good story that they wish to represent, I was never directing this comment to them. This was a rant, and as such has no real significance. I use the word 'meh', alot. Its meaning is lost on people because it is not a normal word. Meh= "Whatever, doesnt realy matter anyhow". <== Means I'm dont ranting.

Frors But really, it's each players' own character and for them to decide what class to take for each level. You don't tell me how to play my character and I won't tell you how to play yours.

Lado Please try to give friendly advice, rather than rules of thumb that bear little relevance to server rules of EfU.

Ebok No.

Monk/Druids are exact opposites. There are no Cannon orders that allow the combination of these classes.

Well, that's just entirely wrong actually--but feel free to make erroneous statements. :wink:

There are two dieties that allow monk/druid followers I can think of from the top of my head. Likely there are more, so it hardly matters if no "order" allows it--but again I can think of one Order that probably does maybe two.

Any class can take x levels of one class, then x levels of monk (uninterrupted), and if they want return to the first class and never take monk again.

All that really matters is that are making a character make sense in character and not just making a "power build". Of course, for the record multiclassed monks aren't that powerful in EfU, not even monk/druids will really be that powerful compared to anything else.

Exactly, multiclassing is never more powerful than a mono-class, you sacrifice your "power" for versatility with multiclassing. You also end up with a more interesting character from my point of view, I like the variety and options it opens up. It's also a great backdrop for an interesting background and future path rp wise.

It's not for everybody, but for people like me it's the way I want to approach things.

As for monk/druids: There ARE lawful neutral druids around with a patron deity, it's not that far fetched at all. That hermit in the woods trying to get in touch with nature and themselves makes a completely reasonable monk/druid. Sure on other servers you see monk/druid/shifters BREAKING the inadequacies of the game engine but thats no reason to stop normal class combinations. Then again you see knockdown/sneak attack combos on here, improved power attack + true strike , Ultravision + darkness. A lot of other combos that are supposedly canon but as cheesy as you can get also. Then there are 'standard' spell combos too, incapacitate and blast etc.

ExileStrife

Harlstar

Ladocicea I made it onto the DM team on a Ranger/Rogue character.

Lawlz.

how?

Level seven in less than a week, and you have to kill ten players by then. It's the only way to truely show you understand the server's enviroment and you have the mechanics well enough under your belt to keep up with the DM client.

Lado's character was also very well done IMOA. His play reflected his multi-class well and fit both with his race and environment. He was a faction member complete with a serious disadvantage of sorts in the chosen faction. He also contributed heavily to the factions goal and was an all around dirty rotten bastard XD <3 That character Lado...I figured you were up to something, but I never did figure out what until [spoiler spoiler spoiler] XD

:roll: Multiclassing tends to balance itself, that is very true. Lots of chessy/effective combos out there, then again thats realistic as well.

On the topic of Monks, I might be completely wrong. I am aware some deities have both monks and clerics((druid*)) among their worshipers, the question was, if there were any orders that allow it. None of the listed orders on the forum that expliticly states they allow a monk/druid multiclass. The forum lists all the orders that I've never((ever*)) seen in any 3rd edition suppliment. I know you can "give up" monk to take another class, but besides that, and So I'm not wrong Next time, I'm interested in learning which possible orders your refering to, Oro.

Ebok :roll: Multiclassing tends to balance itself, that is very true. Lots of chessy/effective combos out there, then again thats realistic as well.

On the topic of Monks, I might be completely wrong. I am aware some deities have both monks and clerics among their worshipers, the question was, if there were any orders that allow it. None of the listed orders on the forum that expliticly states they allow a monk/druid multiclass. The forum lists all the orders that I've never seen in any 3rd edition suppliment. I know you can "give up" monk to take another class, but besides that, and So I'm not wrong Next time, I'm interested in learning which possible orders your refering to, Oro.

See, still wrong.

Silvanus has an order of monk-druids, they make an appearance in a third edition adventure module.

Kossuth has monk/druid worshippers.

Any diety that allows lawful neutral druids likely will accept monk-druid as a multiclass but not necessarily a straight one for one, perhaps you have to take all the monk classes in one lump--but some do have orders mentioned outside source books in canon sources such as adventure modules, Dragon magazine, or canon novels. DnD is all about flexibility and letting players do anything and I've even seen paladin/bards done in the past.

Just because you don't know something, doesn't make you correct about its lack of existance.

I know nothing of dark matter, but it would be erroneous for me to claim that means it doesn't exist. If you want to go for accuracy, just say "I don't know of any monk/druid orders".

What? *sigh*

Firstly, Thanks for answering my question. Though, I never claimed to be all knowing, and say otherwise a few times in the post your quoting. I did say "I don't know of any monk/druid orders" Just in other words...

None of the listed orders on the forum that expliticly states they allow a monk/druid multiclass. The forum lists all the orders that I've [ever] seen in any 3rd edition suppliment.

I could continue this. But I'm done. So instead I'll just Quote the Forum information about Monks, so people reading this wont get the wrong idea.

Most Faerunian monks are capable of gaining levels in another class before returning to the way of the monk and gaining new levels as monks. The description in the Monastic Orders below specify into which classes an order's members can multiclass freely. The character may add levels of monk and any specified class without penalty. Violating these expanded limits (by multiclassing into a class not on the order's approved list) ends the monk's development as a monk, as described in normal rules. Some orders place additional restrictions on multiclassing, as brought out in their descriptions. If a monk violates any such restrictions, she can no longer advance as a monk.

Yes Ebok, I know. Most the information on the forum was compiled by me on another website and then got transfered here.

I left off references to monk/druid traditions when I compiled the list because on the server I DM'ed, we didn't want any monk/druid builds at all. Ever.

That was the consensus there, I personally don't mind them as much on certain conditions. So yes, we're disagreeing. Its not wording. Its a disagreement.

Sadly, we can't even agree that we disagree. :)

There are certain orders that allow multiclassing to -any- class providing you work within the ratio restrictions.

When multiclassing here are my favorites.

Fighter/rouge are among the most powerful.

Fighter/ranger are uber against your favored enemy.

Monk are best pure. no exception multiclassing a monk is a bad idea

druids are best pure unless your going for shifter

rouges are suggested to multiclass a littli bit but stay pure for sneak attack.((have a ranger lvl for undead))

Paladins.....stay pure.

Barbarians pure.((wouldn't want to know why you would multi these guys in the first place))

wiz/sorc suggested to be pure but go ahead

cleric. these guys are uber when spells are alplied. but have at least one fighter lvl in case

what i miss?

Thomas_Not_very_wise

Monk are best pure. no exception multiclassing a monk is a bad idea

If you're talking strictly from an rp point of view then this is simply your opinion and I can't really argue against it. However, if your talking about the effectiveness of the char then I'd have to disagree pretty strongly. I'm a total noob to efu but I've played, and seen, some quite strong monk muticlass combos at other places. While single class monks do get some very good abilities adding another class or 2 can help complement their already good abilities and shore up some of their weaknesses.

As with every multiclass, it is possible to play your character with characteristics that are intrinsic to each of his skill sets. Not all rangers are 'woodsy' types. A man with good knowledge of his land, horseback riding, (which, admittedly, isn't a part of EfU, but can and has been a part of characters' backgrounds) archery, herbal lore (represented here most accurately by the Heal skill) and just a taste for outdoor spaces is a ranger. Hell, you can even strip some of these characteristics, and still have a ranger on your hands. A character who fights with lighter armor, has skill in tracking and doesn't have that 'religious' devotion to the craft of combat isn't a fighter. Fighters dedicate themselves to fighting.

Now, I can see both ranger/rogue and rogue/ranger making sense on EfU (the distinction here being the order in which the classes were taken, meaning the path the character took in his development), but since I play a ranger/rogue, I'm going to make my case for that: EfU is a very urban environment for a lot of the characters in it. The city is the safest place to be, and pretty much the only area where you can be sure you're not going to be attacked by some Under-critter out of the blue (there are, of course, exceptions) so, I really can see how someone who was previously used to the outdoors, or a rural environment taking his time to improve in an urban environment, given that much of his previous knowledge is basically garbage now -- the outlandish, bizarre nature of the Underdark can turn a profficient herbalist from the surface into a layperson in Sanctuary. They are going to have to learn their craft all over again. Of course, it would be a lot easier to pick up herbalism in a completely different environment if you have a background in the subject elsewhere (sort of how it's easy to learn, say, Spanish, if you already know Portuguese - the two languages are intimately related, despite some rather large differences in some areas). This is just an example of how one can go from Ranger into Rogue and 'make sense' in the setting. It's not hard to do, and making broad, umbrella statements concerning all of the folks who happened to make a choice for a certain multiclass isn't the most productive way to discuss how we can add uniqueness to the setting by deviating a bit from the standard, rulebook norm for every single class and multi-class combination out there.

- Kiaring

The Urban Ranger.

Why is he finger-deep in dog shit?

yeah i've read about that prestige class, a city can almost be like a wilderness of it's own, i'm sure those of you that live in very large cities like LA will be able to relate. "it's a jungle out there" etc

He's probably about to raise those fingers to his nose and give it a sniff and tell you how long ago that dog was there , what he had for breakfast and where he's sleeping :)

chaosprism yeah i've read about that prestige class, a city can almost be like a wilderness of it's own, i'm sure those of you that live in very large cities like LA will be able to relate. "it's a jungle out there" etc

He's probably about to raise those fingers to his nose and give it a sniff and tell you how long ago that dog was there , what he had for breakfast and where he's sleeping :)

Pfft, he's not much of a ranger then is he, even I can tell thedog is standing right behind him casually looking away from the pile of shit he layed down moments ago. :wink:

That would make tracking in EFU pretty hard, since you walk on rocky ground not covered with dog shit....or at least I hpoe to god it isn't covered...

You been in Lower recently?

That dog next to him is of course his animal companion street mutt :), he's looking for the dog owned by evil villian #6.

Another aspect which I feel makes little sense, tracking in a city? It would be increadibly difficult if not impossible. Leaving a footprint in cobblestones is alot different from leaving a footprint in grass, especilly when the the number of people passing over the same spot taken into consideration.

There is no grass in the Underdark. It's all stone, baby.

There are still things such as moss and plants (transparent blue mushrooms which you probably shouldn't eat, for example) that could easily justify tracking in the wilderness. One thing tha makes tracking in wilderness areas possible is the fact that, unlike a town, it isn't planed, all areas are wild and have somthing on it, even if it is only dust. In a city, all these things would be thrown around constantly with people moving, but in the wilderness it would be to a lesser extent, enough to track using it (otherwise there would be NO point in the dms adding track to this module, and it IS somthing they have added)

Throwing in my two farthings worth here.

Here is one example of (I think) a legitimate Ranger/Rogue. My own dwarf character is a former tunnel rat of his clan. He's lived his whole life tracking down and disposing of vermin in the lower caves and mines of his clan hold until ending up in Sanctuary. He needed the skills he had in order to survive. Because their hold is an ancient and recently re-occupied one, he picked up some open locks and find/remove/traps to facilitate his movements about the place. His weapons were originally all small and light (short sword and buckler, darts and buckler) until he picked up an axe he liked here near Sanctuary. But he still carries that short sword even though he hasn't used it in ages - just in case he needs to get into one of those snug tunnels again. It's all about the backstory - I have thought out justification for every skill the guy has.

Prof

[quote="Inquisitor"]There is no grass in the Underdark. It's all stone, baby.

Stone, dust, dirt...

All the $@^& you'd find in a cave :)

Personally I have no objection to multiclassing, even if it is for power builds. When I create a character, I come up with a concept, a history and a personality first, the class comes last. Once I have the character in my head, I go ahead and make the most powerful character I possibly can that fits the concept. Why? Simply because this server is damn hard, and I die alot, and if taking a freaking level of rogue or ranger or whatever is mean I die even one less time, its well worth whatever snide looks the purists throw my way.

I'm not entirely sold on multi-classing making for the most powerful builds as it is. Rogue/Ranger, Fighter/Barbarian, Monk/Druid all gain a few amazing bonuses, but also miss out on the best things their classes have to offer. Be it spell progression slowed down, losing out on improved crits, or being unable to take an amazing rogue-only feat like crippling strike.

At any rate! Try not to worry about what other people are doing, and the game should be entirely more worthwhile and fun.

[snidely looks at Scrappayeti]

Druid monks seem an obvious abuse in a Faerun setting, with no order that permits the combination, and no multiclassing of monks without an apropriate order.

I would think that Barbarian/Fighter would be a fairly common build for power reasons, but all the barbarians who come here are going to have to deal with the fact that they are now in a treacherous urban environment, and people here fight differently. Those halforcs who try to 'assimilate' with human society, (and seem to most common barb/fighters.) and who now fight for gold, not thier tribe, seem entirely apropriate.

With 3.5 (nwn2) a lot of the multiclass rorting is fixed, with less given at lvl 1 to most classes. Clerics still get to pwnz0r mind you, and druids now get to join them with natural spell.

If the DMs dislike the lvl 1 ranger rort, then you could put tracking in at lvl 2... lets pure rangers start with it, but not the Rangerrogues.

If the DMs dislike the lvl 1 ranger rort, then you could put tracking in at lvl 2... lets pure rangers start with it, but not the Rangerrogues.

I don't think that tracking is the reason they multiclass, but rather every other perk, like trackless step, medium armors, martial weapons, +1 AB, more HP, dual wielding.

You can come up with whatever justification you want for being a ranger rogue but a DM can tell with just a bit of watching if you're really a "urban ranger/tracker" or what have you or are just trying to spam the free dual wield.

Seeing as rogues don't have a great deal of melee combat ability anyway until they get that weapon finesse in their hands, you can just get it out of the way at level one like I did and take ambidexterity and two weapon fighting off the bat. Now I have no qualms about wanting to spam as many sneaks as possible, and if someone asks I can say "pure rogue baby"

Hell anyone can dual wield if theyre so inclined without taking the ranger class. And besides what feats must a rogue have anyways? I'd sacrifice a horde of feats just to get an extra sneak per round. And as long as you flank each time you sneak youre getting the dual wield at the same as wielding a single weapon!

Hm...I can see Nero's point, but I can see particular character story lines that would make Ranger/Rogue builds ideal. For example: A follower of Shevarash has complete hatred of Drow. His lust and zeal of hatred for Drow result in him/her being a loner. Ranger classes allow him/her to specialize in hating a particular enemy (elves). And the rogue types allow him/her to focus training on striking down their enemy from behind. All the while, being able to blend into the shadows, which is a very practical skill living in the underdark and being surrounded by hostilities.

Now with that being said, this particular character would not be the animal loving type who is able to talk to animals or converses with Druids pertaining to the nature balance issues.

Just my perspective, Domare

Instead of characters being viewed as one, two, or three individual components, depending upon how many classes they assume, why can they not be viewed as the sum of those components?

I have a tribal half-orc character, and my build will eventually have him progress into a barbarian/fighter/ranger hybrid. Instead of calling him a barbarian/fighter/ranger, why could I not instead consider him a savage warrior that possesses great skill in combat and, as such, he serves in the hunt?

On another server, I used to play a halfling that worshipped Tymora. Instead of calling him a rogue/cleric of Tymora/bard, why could I not consider him a wandering friar, skilled at concealing himself from the dangers of the road and singing songs to lift the spirits of his fellow travellers?

In the example of the ranger/rogue, instead of calling the character a ranger/rogue, why could they not be considered a sharp-shooting bounty hunter, capable of tracking their fleeing quarry through the wilderness between settlements and then confronting them as they cower behind what they thought was a locked inn door?

The character classes themselves do not determine what your character is. It is what you do with the classes that determines that. I believe the varying classes should be thought of as different shades of paint that you can combine to create the picture of your character.

Personally, I am not bothered by any multiclass combination, however awkward. What bothers me is when people take a single level just for free feats and special abilities. The Rogue 6 / Ranger 1 build is extremely common, it seems, and I think it should only be tolerated if the background of the character warrants it. Same goes for Something X / Rogue 1. This should really only be feasible if the character was a street urchin thief in his youth, or something.

I do not agree.

It is often that a character learns from others, let a fighter, who always exmine the rogues in the party. One who is looking for quite a full level to see what they do, I think he deserves a 1 rogue level... And remember, the farther the fighter is, the harder to level.

My rogue used to be an intelligent one (yes, most rogues are ), if he watched rangers for quite a time, he could learn atleast some of their tricks (he was watching rangers of the same level, so he learned a bit - first level) add his experiments and the such, as many abilities he knows a bit, gives him the opportunity to learn and succeed.

The point is, I don't think the feats your chars gets at level 1 are worth enough. As for rangers, most probably they will not get the spells (as they don't have an appropriate god), and the other feats are depend on RP anyway... (I've seen player who role thier chars poorly die fast while well rolled chars somehow manage to survive )

OMGbearisdriving

Now I have no qualms about wanting to spam as many sneaks as possible, and if someone asks I can say "pure rogue baby"

Hey thats my line! Come on take that extra level of ranger, you know you want to.

Alright, I'm not reading the 5 pages of responses at this point, but instead will reply to a few general comments I caught as I glanced through them.

First off, having a rogue ranger build can be seen as a powerbuild seening as the v3 ranger was granted several key feats that boost many commonly taken rogue skills if you only take 1 level of ranger.

Second, urban rangers exist, as to wildnerness rogues. The 'stereotypical' roles of each class has been reversed here (we think of rangers typically as woodsman and rogues as bandits and local theives), though keep in mind that with the exception of the disable trap and open lock skills, the ranger has almost 85% the same skills available that a Rogue has, and vice versa. The classes differ as one is more magically and combat oriented while the other has to use other skills and tactics to compensate for the former.

Third, NO build is without the ability to RP it. So yes, some power-players will find a way to explain their powerbuild, while others legitimately play the role.

Fourth, I'll use my own Rogue/ranger as an example.

he started off as a rogue, not sure what to do, but using his engineering skills and intellect to help others (craft trap, open lock, disable trap, heal ((medical science can be learned)), search and spot).

Then when he witnessed his first murder (a paladin named Dell), he asked Kara Jassen (spelling) to teach him how to fight with different weapons, (took ranger level, gained martial proficiency) she denied him as she claimed she wasn't a good teacher. He became wounded (fugued) and without her skill didn't learn much (lost a level and instead took a rogue level instead of Ranger).

Again he was injured (fugued) and this time was nursed to health by his eventual mentor (Kain Darkblade), an elven ranger. Through him, he learned how to track folks and better adapt to his surroundings (retook ranger level). Seeing as my character was faithless, my mentor did not bother to explain divine powers of nature to him, as it would have just caused frustration. He also lacked the personal suave nature to coerce animals into trusting him ((no animal empathy points)). He was working on this when his mentor was slain.

Since then, he's had to deal with assination attempts on both himself and several women he's cared about ((Meriam and Caliira)). Through this he honed his ability to track and remain hidden as well as the ability to take folks by surprise ((stealthy feat, sneak attack rogue levels, and heavy use of the tracking ability)). Also having faced off with Sqeagle more than once because of the women and people squeagle'd slain, he also grew a hatred towards goblins in a fierce way ((favored enemy: Goblinoids))

However, now that his revenge days are through, he's strongly considering spending more time away from the city to become close to nature ((soon to have animal empathy points and another ranger level)).

And finally, since he seems to gravitate towards befriendly mages and clerics, for some odd reason, he's also learned, from observation of use, how to at least invoke magical energies (UMD SKILL) and has since become a big proponent of folks to pursue magical arts (something he openly hated when he first arrived).

So while this sounds like a powerbuild, he has a LONG history of choosing either for or against his connection with nature, all based on his IC actions and interactions, results, injuries, deaths, successess and failures.

And having that good history with a character who responds to IC events in his life is, or at least SHOULD BE, the reason why folks multiclass on this server.

....And then theres poor Wilimek, the ranger/rogue is a interesting class combination to play. I feel if the PCs background supports the build and he is played correctly then I dont see a problem. Oh and if my PC Wil would stop gettin smacked down you all might see a ranger 2/ Rogue 4 for more than a week. He lost his second level of ranger twice in his carreer so far. That cant be helped due to the challenging and fun nature of this server.

this is still going? damn