Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1839605" data-attributes="member: 172">Which baffles me. Who says that a fighter/wizard or cleric/sorcerer has to be viable?Not that I see it as a problem if you do like those ideas, but there is no reason they HAVE TO BE VIABLE.And it baffles me that people think that it has to be viable. I mean, it's not like any other character option has this sort of expectation assigned to it. There's no frothing because skill focus doesn't help you with cross class skills as much as your class skills.Monk has actually gotten much better. Now they get to keep benefits of their flurry. The way you counted their intereative attacks before, more than a few levels in a different class, it was like you didn't even have the ability.Bardic music, OTOH, seems to have had the kibosh deliberately put upon it for multiclassing. Before, bard levels were not a factor.There are some options to help boost the viability of normally unviable combinations. Those mostly lie in the realms of classes (mystic theurge, etc.) and feats (practiced spellcaster), or campaign variants like in UA. I actually prefer it that way because it gives the DM the power to control the tenor of the campaign by regulating what they let in, rather that forcing DMs who aren't comfortable with it to slap on restrictions after the fact.IMO, no. I remember having a real hard time swallowing this when 3e came out, but now, semblances I see of 1e multiclassing in third party products really make me wrinkle my nose.</blockquote>

Verification