Let's say at some point I finish the stuff I'm working on and start my own retroclone. (Unlikely, but just babbling here.)

Would you include Multi-Classing and Dual Classing?

Would you like me, think that it was always backwards? Humans were meant to be versatile--and to me that means "Do more stuff.." which has always suggested multi-classing. Sure they have short lifespans, but that makes it work better since likely they're cramming as much in as they can.

On the other hand, Dual Classing seems a better fit for the long lived, more focused races. Spend time doing one thing, until you get bored, do another for a while, until you die or settle down, whichever comes first in an adventurer's life.


What do you think?

Quote from: Silverlion;522254Let's say at some point I finish the stuff I'm working on and start my own retroclone. (Unlikely, but just babbling here.)

Would you include Multi-Classing and Dual Classing?

Would you like me, think that it was always backwards? Humans were meant to be versatile--and to me that means "Do more stuff.." which has always suggested multi-classing. Sure they have short lifespans, but that makes it work better since likely they're cramming as much in as they can.

On the other hand, Dual Classing seems a better fit for the long lived, more focused races. Spend time doing one thing, until you get bored, do another for a while, until you die or settle down, whichever comes first in an adventurer's life.


What do you think?

If you're going to do both, then yes, swap them. It makes MUCH more sense that an elf decides "You know what? I'm tired of having to stand back and shoot magic missile. I'm going to learn how to fight with a sword."

That said, I would probably just go the 3e route of "when you go up a level, either add a level in your current class or another class". Multiclassing was one of those things that I thought 3e REALLY got right (moreso than any other edition, anyway).

I like the traditional model a fair bit (although, I also played in a 2E game where we dropped most of the restrictions and just went crazy, which was fun too).

Most of the non-human races at 1st level are already much older than humans - up to 100 or so for the elf PC, I think. So it makes more sense that they're already multiclassed.

Dual-classing for demihumans would also be a really easy way around level limits, unless you also drop those.

I don't actually like the 3E multiclass model - too flexible, to the point where its almost like a "lifepath" system. My favourite would be Palladium's fantasy system, which is more flexible than AD&D but with a probable upper limit of 4 or 5 classes.

I'm seriously considering throwing open the multiclass door to humans (and the dualclass to demihumans, as well) in my 1e game.  We'll see if it leads to dogs living with cats, etc.

I've never liked either. I don't see that its necessary.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;522256That said, I would probably just go the 3e route of "when you go up a level, either add a level in your current class or another class". Multiclassing was one of those things that I thought 3e REALLY got right (moreso than any other edition, anyway).

Basic idea is great. The execution in 3.5 not so much, but that's another matter.

Old School Hack is even better:

- You can take level in a class other than your own, but you can never have more levels in other classes than you have in your own class.

- If another player plays the class you want to take a level in you have to ask for their permission.

I don't like either.

If you have a class based system then multi/dual classing just seem to be an odd choice and they are the hunting ground for the worst min maxers.

The Wizard that takes levels of monk and figther to give them access to magical swords, high unarmoured AC and spells for example, is a meta concept designed to maximise the effectiveness of the PC in play and has no Roleplay basis.

I much prefer a system that allows PCs to buy elements of other classes at a greater cost as it controls min maxing (provided the system is robust) but still allows flexibility.
Ideally I would like a system where the GM can build a class from the base building blocks for their setting. So in this setting Elves of the Mystic Forest can be Rangers, Diviners or members of the Order of Shadows and each of these classes is a blend of elements that the GM has put together for that setting. The Rangers get some magic, the Diviners are unarmoured wizards but can use swords and the Order of Shadows are a monk-like regligious order with martial arts and psionics.  The GM builds those classes through a toolkit. This is kind of where Skills and Powers was goign , but obviously Skills and Powers was absolute shit and made the mistake of giving the toolkit to the PCs not the GM.

As long as you keep the Ability score requirements intact then I think that this will work out well.  One of the common breakdown of these rules (Dual-classing and Multi-classing) in AD&D was that requirements to take this option in the first place were discarded.  This was taken to an absurd level in my group's 3.5 D&D games where all Multi-classing restrictions were discarded completely and characters could Multi-class freely.

I've always struggled with dual-classing and multiclassing. Dual-classing always seemed pretty harsh and punishing. It also took a lot of pre-planning if you wanted something in particular.

Multiclassing, I feel like, ended up making characters Swiss army knives. After a while, they lost some usefulness. It never seemed right in the setting either. Who the hell are these guys who can do everything?

I tend toward Jibba's idea. In RC D&D, I try to get players to tell me specifically what they want and I try to create* a class based on what they tell me. So, I ended up with what amounts to Rangers/Barbarians/Gray Dwarves/Hobgoblin Assassin/etc.

* Really, I just modify one of the base classes in the RC, never a wholesale creation.

Quote from: Drohem;522356As long as you keep the Ability score requirements intact then I think that this will work out well.  One of the common breakdown of these rules (Dual-classing and Multi-classing) in AD&D was that requirements to take this option in the first place were discarded.  This was taken to an absurd level in my group's 3.5 D&D games where all Multi-classing restrictions were discarded completely and characters could Multi-class freely.

The problem with that is that you get feedback loops
In later versions of D&D ability score make a huge difference. So the guys that rolled well are already at a big advantage. If you then restrict access to powerful classes and to multi/dual classing to those with high abilities then those with high abilities, who already have an advantage get another advantage so they get a double benefit from high stats which leads to increasing imbalance.

Now some of the easilest AD&D stuff prevented that because if you wanted to be a Paladin (a much more powerful class than a figther) you had to sacrifice a stat on Charisma and in most games that was a sink stat. A fighter with 18 Str and 9 charisma was generally tougher than one with 9 Strength and 18 Charisma.
When you change that in later editions, and lets face it for other reasons it needs changing or you end up with classes that never get played (the odds of playing a paladin on 3d6 in order are less than 1:200) then you get this double bonus.

Its a bit like a system in which PCs with higher stats get more points to spend on skills. Now that might be accurate in real life but it unbalances the game part of play.

Quote from: jibbajibba;522367The problem with that is that you get feedback loops

In all honestly, I'm not sure what this statement means.

Quote from: jibbajibba;522367In later versions of D&D ability score make a huge difference. So the guys that rolled well are already at a big advantage. If you then restrict access to powerful classes and to multi/dual classing to those with high abilities then those with high abilities, who already have an advantage get another advantage so they get a double benefit from high stats which leads to increasing imbalance.

There is a trade off: the decision to Dual-class or Multi-class in AD&D does have a drawback in campaign-style of play (naturally, in one-off games it's not an issue) in that character's overall level will probably be less than single-classed characters in the same campaign.   Of course, the trade off in 3.0/3.5 D&D is that you gimp your BAB when you Multi-class extensively.

I have no problem with having both requirements and restrictions on Dual-class and Multi-class rules.  It should be difficult to become a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief/Cleric/Assassin/Illusionist; no matter the system or archetypes involved.

Quote from: jibbajibba;522329I don't like either.

If you have a class based system then multi/dual classing just seem to be an odd choice and they are the hunting ground for the worst min maxers.

The Wizard that takes levels of monk and figther to give them access to magical swords, high unarmoured AC and spells for example, is a meta concept designed to maximise the effectiveness of the PC in play and has no Roleplay basis.

I much prefer a system that allows PCs to buy elements of other classes at a greater cost as it controls min maxing (provided the system is robust) but still allows flexibility.
Ideally I would like a system where the GM can build a class from the base building blocks for their setting. So in this setting Elves of the Mystic Forest can be Rangers, Diviners or members of the Order of Shadows and each of these classes is a blend of elements that the GM has put together for that setting. The Rangers get some magic, the Diviners are unarmoured wizards but can use swords and the Order of Shadows are a monk-like regligious order with martial arts and psionics.  The GM builds those classes through a toolkit. This is kind of where Skills and Powers was goign , but obviously Skills and Powers was absolute shit and made the mistake of giving the toolkit to the PCs not the GM.

Exactly, the same thing with 3/3.5.  All these Feats, Powers, options, etc... they really should have been presented as building blocks for making classes and races for your world.

Quote from: CRKrueger;522385Exactly, the same thing with 3/3.5.  All these Feats, Powers, options, etc... they really should have been presented as building blocks for making classes and races for your world.

Agee 100%

Besides spellcasting, I've never seen a multiclassing problem in 3.5e that couldn't be easily resolved by the "seriously, are you fucking kidding me?" test.

Recently in an AD&D campaign a player lost his character and the DM decided to allow him to make a new character with the same number of XP. After looking at the PHB he decides to go for Bard (which involves Dual Classing). We were 7th level characters when this happened.

To our surprise he was able to make a 3rd level Bard dual classed as a 5th level Fighter and a 5th Level Thief.

When we looked at the numbers. What happened is that the doubling of required xp to advance really worked in his favor. It required only a modest amount of xp to advance to 5th level in both Fighter and Thief and then to 3rd level to Bard.

The implication of this is that in AD&D 1st; Dual Classing isn't as onerous as it first appears. Because when you do it, it is likely that you will continue adventuring with the rest of the party. The XP award will not be what you getting when you were at low levels but whatever the party been tackling i.e. deeper dungeon levels.  Advancement through the lower levels will be a lot more rapid than what occurred for the original levels.

When it all said and done it is likely the dual classed character will only be a level or two behind the rest of the party. By that point it is likely he would have exceeded his former levels and regained his old abilities.