Raven Crowking said:
Or yours does.
Perhaps, but, on the other hand, when I was playing AD&D, I moved several times and played with literally dozens of groups. The enhanced effectiveness of multiclassed characters was constant throughout every group.
IME, this wasn't a huge edge, and multiclassed characters ultimately didn't succeed the way single-classed characters did. Being a fighter who cannot wear armor, for example, meant that many fighter/magic users got a few extra hit points for that drop in level because they only went into combat as a last resort. The multi-classed characters had to divide their XP equally between classes; playing a three-class character was simply suicidal.
Ultimately, but then again, most campaigns never got to the point where things that were "ultimately" true actually mattered. You might also note that in 1e, fighter/magic-users were not prevented from wearing armor, so your argument there seems to fall apart. And if that were a problem, think of the class not as a fighter with magic-user tacked on, but as a magic-user with fighter tacked on. Compared to a 6th level magic-user, a 5th/5th level fighter/magic-user gains much, and gives up almost nothing.
The fact that multiclassed character had to divide their experience equally between two classes was not really a hindrance. The nature of the 1e experience point tables meant that they lagged one level behind (or two levels behind for a triple classed character) the single classed characters. But they added all the abilities of a second class one level below that of the single classed character (and sometimes not even that, at several experience point totals, the single classed character would be matched in level by the multiclasser, entirely eliminating the single classers purported advantage).
Given your notes concerning the limitations you think multiclassed characters labored under, I think you are remembering limitations imposed upon them in 2e, many of which appear to have been a direct outgrowth of the abuses they were prone to in 1e. 2e, however, had its own powergaming problems.
But let us not forget that, if he used any abilities from his previous class he gained no XP for that session. If you're hanging around with your old buddies, the odds are good that you'll either end up falling back on your old skills (for survival) or you won't survive. The rules, therefore, ameleorate the effect you are talking about here. IME, they ameleorate it so much that very few players chose to dual class.
They ameliorate it almost not at all. In 1e, especially as played by Gygax and company, it was not uncommon for characters of widely differing levels to adventure together to begin with. The cohesive party of the modern era was not yet developed, and instead parties of dungeon delvers would assemble and set out together, so it was not uncommon for a 5th level character to adventure with some 9th level guys and so on. Further, even if that is not the case, the level ramp up is so fast, that it would take almost no time to bump up to repsetable level in your second class. For a 9th level character, accumulating 2,000 experience points was almost trivial. A fight or two and the resulting plunder probably. That makes you 2nd level. Then third comes quickly too, and before a single night of gaming is done, you probably accumulate enough experience points to beef up to 5th level or so. At that point, solely relying on your new classes abilities for the next couple of weeks or months of gaming is not much of a sacrifice at all.
Finally, molonel, changing the outcome of a die roll because you don't like the result you get is cheating, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if it is during character generation, combat, or whathaveyou. You may argue that cheating is "just good sense", but that doesn't change what it is.
I agree here.
