Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3226104" data-attributes="member: 307">I think the most amusing thing (to me) is that tx7321 is hung up on the ability to create "mixed" characters in 3e, and how that dilutes the "roles" each party member should play. But 1e was much, much worse in this regard. In 1e, multiclass characters rocked, giving up almost nothing for a lot of other powers.A multiclass fighter/magic-user, fighter/thief, or fighter/cleric (or cleric/magic-user, or whatever two classes you wanted to jam together) lost about one (!) level in effectiveness in each class, and gained all the abilities of the other class. So, Bob the single class 8th level fighter, and Jim the single class 8th level magic-user would be traveling with Jimbob, the multiclass 7th/7th level fighter/magic-user.How about that for dilution of roles?On the other hand, if you multiclass in 3e, you are often going to be far worse at stuff than you would have been in 1e. Jimbob is now a 4th/4th level multiclass fighter/wizard (if he splits evenly), or a much worse fighter than wizard or vice versa. You cannot create a "do it all" character who is as effective as a focused character.In other words, 3e does a better job at rewarding players who fill specific roles than 1e did.</blockquote>