Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmu1" data-source="post: 3765784" data-attributes="member: 319">Nope. I actually think that 3E multi-classing was just fine. Just because someone can think of putting two particular classes together, it doesn't mean it's a good idea, that it was meant to be, or that the system is defective for not making it an easy choice.   I think the Practiced Spellcaster feat was a very good idea, but that's about it - I have no use for the various PrCs that let you advance in two classes at once. I don't think they "fix" anything, I think they're just affirmative action for people who aren't good at playing the game, and something to abuse for those who can game the system. I actually think 3E/3.5 is a pretty forgiving RPG system when it comes to making hybrid characters. Most point-buy (rather than level-based) RPGs out there make it a lot harder to make one those. Still, a lot of people actually think 2e multi-classing was balanced, so naturally, they think the world's being unfair to them with 3E. <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=":)" /></blockquote>