toberane said:
I'm sure I don't have a chance of changing your mind on this,
Quite possible that you're right with this.
but here's my perspective.
OK.
If you wanted to multiclass in 2nd Ed, you had to be a demihuman, had to be a race that allowed the particular multiclass you want,
Well, that confirms my point: Multiclassing got more versatile. While versatility means power, there are other factors that changed.
had to split up your hit points (A fighter 7/Wizard 7 has hit points a little better than a wizard 7 but worse than a fighter 7)
Sure. But a Fighter 7/Wizard 7 still has better HP than a Wiz 14, but worse than a Ftr 14.
and had to abide by all of the drawbacks of each class (a fighter 7/wizard 7 couldn't wear ANY armor or else they couldn't cast ANY spells)
Sure, because how the rules are changed, multiclass get power from that.
and on top of that, since you had to be a demihuman, there is a good chance that your levels in one of your multiple classes would be cut short by the level limits.
That is, of course, true. Although the level caps are amongst the most stupid rules ever to stand in any (A)D&D work, and many DM's disregarded them anyway. But, by the official rules, that meant loss of power at higher levels, so this also counts towards your argument that multiclassed characters are more powerful now than they were then!
In 3E, multiclassing is stronger, since anyone can do it,
As I said: that makes it more versatile not stronger.
they get the full benefits of either class (all the weapon proficiencies, all the spells, all the attack bonuses, all the hit points, everything).
You got the full benefits of either class before (except HP): you still have the same restrictions as a single classed character of those classes, only that they are now less restrictive: A Ftr/Wiz in 2e could use Armor, and a Ftr/Wiz in 3e can use armor. Both receive the usual spellcasting penalties for castin in armor: in 2e, this was no spellcasting, in 3e it is arcane spell failure.
Of course, this empowers multiclassed characters as well.
The 3E rules tried really hard to get rid of most restrictions and make you simply have to pay a price for the benefits you got (You want to wear heavy armor as a wizard? Go ahead! You just have to realize that some of your spells may fail.)
Sure. I don't deny that a single second. It's one of the reasons why 3e is so much better than crappy 2e.
I guarantee you, the 3E wizard 7/fighter 7 has some advantages, not the least of which being that his touch, ranged touch, and ranged spells (the ones that often don't allow saves) will hit a lot more often than the wizard 14.
I never said the multiclassed character had no advantages.
On the other hand, though, a Ftr 14 will be the better Fighter, and he will be it all the time.
The Wiz 14 will have more powerful spells, like delayed blast fireball or prismatic spray (to mention only some evocation spells) with more nasty save DC's
If the CR14 bad guy breaks through your line of defenses and takes a couple of whacks at the Wizard 14, he could be a pile of ashes, but the Wizard 7/Fighter 7 wouldn't be nearly as badly off.
But the Wizard14 has much more spells (and more powerful ones) to deal with this. He can magically protect himself far better than the Ftr/Wiz, and may not even need the additional HP of the Fighter levels (and other benefits)
Still, Multiclassing in 2e was stronger than in 3e, especially at lower levels: in 3e, you need the XP for a 14th-level Character to become a Ftr 7/Wiz 7. In 2e, you needed only the XP for, around, 9th level. Your Wizard Comrades would be 9th level Wizard, with 5th-level Magic and crappy melee powers. You would be 7th-level wizard with 4th-level spells, but with great melee powers. The restriction on demihumans merely meant that many players played demihumans so they could multiclass, even though they liked humans more.
Clearly, the 2e system was to strong, but it doesn't change the fact that 3e multiclassing creates weaker characters than 3e.
Now I don't say that's bad - I say it's the right thing. You have 14 levels, your friends have 14 levels, no matter whether anyone is multiclassing. You don't have to make compromises with your race, since all races are treated equally. You can combine (almost) all classes with each other. And the penalties you have are less than those you had before. All in all, you won't have the overpower multiclass characters used to have, but it's far more versatile than before. Which encourages roleplaying (you won't have to change your race because of the class you want to play or vice versa)
I have a 21st level rogue 17/fighter 2/ranger 2 right now, and I can easily point out to you how my character is much stronger because of the multiclassing than he would have been as a straight rogue 21. Sure, I only have 9d6 sneak attack bonus instead of 11d6, but I have 4 attacks a round, where a rogue 21 would only get three. I have several more feats now than I could have gotten as a straight rogue, and many of them were taken to improve my sneak attacks (like expert tactician). My hit point total is considerably higher than it would have been as a straight rogue. When it comes to damage dealt per round, I usually do as much or more than the 21st level fighters in our group, because I have used every advantage I can to ensure that I get to sneak attack A LOT, and many of those advantages were gained by multiclassing a few levels.
Well, if you regularly deal more damage than your fighter types, it would not be much different with a straight rogue. So something's wrong. The DM should not let the players get maximum advantage of min/maxing all the time. If you singledmindedly improve one ability, you should not be able to use it all the time, because that's not fair to others who play a more balanced character.
Your character also has disadvantages from that deal: you lost a considerable amount of skill points, and skill points should be the main feature of a rogue. (if he can use sneak attack every single round, sometimes even every single attack in every single round, something's completely wrong!) That makes you less versatile, and that's one of the main advantages of rogues. You also lost one of your special abilities, and those are real good, too.
Don't get me wrong: It's a good concept to take a couple of levels in another class to broeaden one's range of abilities, but if you singlemindedly work to improve one ability or tactic, this doesn't make you stronger - unless the DM is stupid enough to get you away with that tactic every time (DM's always should discourage players who depend on a single tactic when they should have much more than that)
So I wholeheartedly disagree with you that multiclassing weakens characters. The level 14 wizard will have better spells and be a stronger spellcaster than the wizard 7/fighter 7, but he won't necessarily be a stronger overall character.
Try it. Our party wizard regrets his multiclassing as a cleric - and he only took one single level - as it delays his aquistion of new spell levels by a level. Spells the enemies already use, and to great effect. If you lose 7 levels, this means you miss up 3 spell levels, and this means the another, full-time, wizard will usually lay waste to you. But that varies from case to case (if you made the multiclass right, it can be OK, as you are more versatile)
Earlier I asserted that the Wizard 20/ Fighter 1 will be a more experienced fighter than a straight fighter 1. Put this assertion to the test. Have a wizard 20/fighter 1 square off against a fighter 1. The rules are that it is a straight fight, no magic items or spells, just one fighter's skill against the other. The fight would last all of about 1 round (less than that if the Wizard 20/Fighter 1 got initiative). It's common sense that a character that multiclasses to fighter at 21st level is going to be a lot better fighter than one who is only a first level fighter.
OK, make a fight of Wizard 21 against Fighter 1, with the same rules. The outcome will be the same. Your example merely proves that wizards can fight a little, too. But that's not the same as the fighter's prowess. A fighter is not just someone with a high BAB. If that were the case, we could take the Warrior NPC Class, that one has the same BAB, the same Saves, the same number of Skill Points (although he has only a d8, that makes 20 HP on average at 20th level). The Fighter gets a boatload of bonus feats which make him a more versatile fighter. Above-Mentioned Wizard 20/ Fighter 1 has no more Fighter feats than the Fighter 1 (I don't think a wizard takes many or even any feats which are on the fighter bonus feat list).
The other important part of my first assertion is that YOU HAVE TO MEET THE FEAT PREREQUISITES.
You could take armor skin, damage reduction, dire charge, epic toughness or penetrate damage reduction (and a couple more), which have no requirements you could only gain through a long fighter career.
Also, as has been pointed out several times, Epic Fighter Bonus Feats are the only class feature of the Epic Fighter, and therefore he has a lot of them. You don't get epic class features from other classes, like DR of 5/- or higher, Uncanny dodge with high + on saves against traps, spell levels of above 20, wild shape 7/day or more often, +4 monk ac bonus, 100 feet unarmored speed, 6 or more favored enemies, sneak attack above +11d6, a familiar with familiar spell.... The other classes have to go through the first 20 levels of the class, gaining only the regular class features, not the epic ones. Why should the fighter be different?
And if you want epic feats: you get one at 21st level, and every 3 levels thereafter, anyway!
