Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Storm Raven" data-source="post: 3231381" data-attributes="member: 307">Umm, rangers had d8 hit dice. So did druids. Your hit dice at each level would have been d8+d8/2 except the first, which would have been d8+d8+d8/2, since ranger's had two hit dice at first level, for an average 1st/1st level ranger/druid with 7.25 hit points, more than the f1st level fighter's average of 5.5 hit points. A ranger/druid in 1e D&D had, on average more hit points than a single class fighter until the fighter reached 2nd level, and when the ranger/druid kept ahead of a single classed druid or cleric at all times. So I think that your contention here is simply off-base.1e multiclassing created more powerful characters. Look at an extreme combination - a fighter/magic-user gains (5.5 + 2.5)/2 = 4 hit points per level, just under the 4.5 average of a straight cleric. So, take your magic-user, add all the abilities of a fighter, and as a bonus, give him an extra 1.5 hit points per hit die on average. All for the cost of a single level or lag behind the single class characters. Why play a straight magic-user?I also don't really see the barbarian 2/rogue 3/ranger 2/fighter 4 multiclass as a munchkin, or even a problem. Sure, he's got some special abilities, but compared to another 11th level character, he's not that great.</blockquote>