Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 814990" data-attributes="member: 172">Heh.... that is so quote fodder. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't totally agree, though. The idea that vertsatility is a viable commodity is the entire reason behind the multi-class methodology in 3e.The catch is that some classes layer better than others. Barbarians and fighters layer just fine, for example, because there is a good synergy between their class abilities, BAB, HP, etc..Spellcasters DON'T have good synergy, because their spell levels don't stack. Every spell level you gain in one class you lose in another. And it's not like one spell level is as good as another, like points of BAB. You lose spell levels, you lose your best spells.This is what makes this class considerable at ALL. I'll assert that spellcasting is 90% or more of the wizards "potency" and at least 50% of the cleric's. Despite the loss of your highest level spells, you are still getting the 90% of the class abilities of the wizard and 50% of those of the cleric (give or take). Pretty soon that additional 40% (give or take) begins to overcome the loss of those higher level spells. You extend this into epic levels unchanged, you almost certainly get a major return on your investment.</blockquote>