Ah, another good reason to splash that one level of ranger.
Wand of Hunter's Mercy?
Now if only I can justify taking a level of barbarian without looking like an idiot...
I don't see there being anything idiotic about it.
I don't see multi-multi-classing as being cheap or munchkinny.
Just because you took your first class level in Fighter doesn't mean you're a registered Journeyman Fighter with the Fighter's Union.
Even worse is the view that all Rogues are thieves.
If a character is best defined mechanically as a Ftr1/Rgr1, I have no problem with that. If he chooses to develop his skills in preference to his fighting prowess next time he levels, a level of Rogue best reflects that. If he wants to tap his inner demons and allow more of his primal nature to surface, a level of Barbarian. If he wants to get more in tune with his mystical heritage, a level of Sorcerer.
It's not like he's going to get a visit from the Ranger Association Membership Committee. "We hear you have a level in Rogue, sir... I'm afraid that's a breach of Association regulations."
Clerics and Paladins are defined, in-character 'occupations'... although I don't see why a high level Adept couldn't call himself a 'Cleric' if he wanted.
Wizards and Druids, to a lesser extent.
But I can imagine a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Aristocrat as head of a Barbarian tribe. He calls himself a barbarian, and takes pride in the name. But he doesn't have any levels in the Barbarian class.
A Fighter/Bard might refer to himself - or more likely, be referred
to - as a 'rogue'. And the Rogue might avoid the term completely.
Character class levels are, for the most part, a meta-concept.
If you want to play a Ftr2/Bbn1/Rgr1/Rog5, because the mechanics fit what you want to portray, be my guest!
-Hyp.
