Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 5982506" data-attributes="member: 3400">I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about any of this. Though I wouldn't characterize melee for the fighter/MU as a trap. It wasn't something you wanted to do if you didn't have to do it because casting in melee was an actual challenge. But if someone did manage to close with you, you were generally in better shape than a single-class wizard a level higher. But then, this is part of the point of multi-classing - giving you more than one mode of operation and filling more than one role in the party.I'd say that the way you characterized your experiences, you're providing ammunition for the groups who say multiclassing in 1e/2e was a little too good. Fighter/MU with bow > MU not currently casting a spell. Fighter/cleric > cleric. Fighter/Thief > thief. Cleric/MU > MU. MU/Thief > Thief (well, just about anything is > thief in numerous ways).There were definite deficiencies in the 3e multiclassing. Martial class multiclassing worked great, but then the combat abilities were additive and had good overlap. It was really just the spellcasting that didn't work right and that was reasonably easily improved by a method or two from the Unearthed Arcana or by a couple of feats that spotted the PC some caster levels (though again, completely fixed is debatable). But 1e/2e multi-classing had its own warts - for example, that Fighter/Thief (at least in 1e, if memory serves) was supposed to use his Thief hit matrix when backstabbing, not his fighter one. It had its own quirks, not the least of which is that multiclassing was often better than being single classed for at least one of the multiclass pairings (as you illustrate above).</blockquote>

Verification