TheRPGSite

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.

Quote from: Drohem;522380In all honestly, I'm not sure what this statement means. :)

I am not sure if you don't know what the term means or if your not sure what he is implying with it. But the term comes from electrical amplification, it basically is when you feed the output from an amplifier into the same amplifier, so you get an endless cycle of making the signal louder and louder. (Normally until the amp distorts the signal so much is unusable).

In D&D terms, I think jibbajabba is saying that to more you make dependent on one thing to more powerful that thing becomes.

A classic example would be a system where knowledge skill tests are based on Intelligence and a skill, and all knowledge skills are equal to your intelligence. At that point, someone with a high intelligence would have *double* the bonus of someone with a low intelligence. which may or may not have been your intent.

I've always thought Dual Classing seemed artificial and arbitrary.  Like a lot of "old school" rules, it was one of those things that just wasn't really good game design.

Justifying it in the context of the game is a little bit more difficult, but it depends on how flexible you want to be and what assumptions you make about skills and abilities.

Does being, for example, a Fighter or a Mage require years of dedicated practice and training just to get to the point represented by a 1st level character?  If so, then maybe it's out for humans, as they wouldn't have the time.

However, old school games would try to redress these issues by simply offering new single classes that had multi-class characteristics, such as Rangers or Paladins.  Newer games have offered classes like Sword Mages (or something to that effect), addressing various combinations of Fighter, Mage, Thief, or Cleric.

I suppose you could imagine a cross-shaped diagram.   No, wait, we're all geeks here, it's a tetrahedron with a single extrusion in the fourth dimension. At the tip of each arm is a class, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, or Thief; the fourth dimensional extrusion is the Druid.  Draw a line between Fighter and Cleric, put a dot somewhere on that line, and you've got a Paladin.  Draw a line between Fighter and Thief, and somewhere on that line is an Assassin.  Draw a line between Fighter and Druid, and you've got a Ranger in there somewhere.

Draw lines and dots until you've got as many classes as satisfy your taste in variety, and only allow single-classing.

Or give people the option to take packages of skills and abilities as suits their whims, point budgets, justifiable campaign background, or whatever metric floats your boat.

Or, just offer basic classes but provide extensive customization options with skills or abilities, so that, say, any Core Class could ostensibly be an Assassin, if you treat Assassin as more of a profession than a class, but each would have a different style of doing it.  Let's say an Assassin has a basic knowledge of underworld contacts (for contracts and payments), stealth, and poisons.  A Fighter Assassin would be somewhat sneaky, and might poison his blade, but would mostly rely on hitting people really hard with a sword.  A Thief Assassin would excel at sneaking, poisoning, and backstabbing, as well as getting into protected locations to do it.  A Mage Assassin would study and practice spells pertinent to assassination... teleportation, darkness, silence, some of the quieter direct attack spells, etc.  A Cleric Assassin... I keep thinking Thuggee here, but would generally use clerical magic to enhance their 'killing people' purpose.

I apologize for digressing a bit, but similar questions occupy my own mind.

Interesting viewpoints thanks all. The reason I'm asking is ideas of retroclones and pseudo clones.

Example: Paths of Glory my not a retroclone does everything as a class. It uses Paths (chains of classes) that tie together thematically to obtains certain abilities. Want to fight better? Take a level of one of the Fighter Paths. It is an attempt to do something simpler without so many derived numbers. At the same time it isn't a retroclone, so I was considering what would work for a mostly retroclone game.

Quote from: estar;522403Recently 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.

Yp one of the myths of Mutilclass /dula class characters in D&D  is that there is a steep gap between power level of a singel class PC and the multiclass guy.  Because you need double xp each level it means a MU/FGH will be 8/8 when the fighter is 9th he won't be 4/5 or something.

Its Like Dual classes in AD&D you start as a Fighter so you get access to armour, sword bow and other weapons. Then you switch to Magic user when you hit level 2. Now you are a first level MU you can;t wear armour, but you couldn't as a 1st level MU anyway. You have 2d10 +14d hp. You can use a bow and a sword and carry a suit of chain in your backpack. Now by the letter of the rules you won't get XP if you use your fighter abilities before you get to 3rd level as a MU (you still have the HP though and a lot of DMS may well waive using a sword as a class ability) When you hit 3rd level you are only 2000 xp behind your party members who are therefore still 3rd level. You now have access to a 6th level MU to hit (1st-2nd level fighter is the same as a 6-10th level MU) you can use any magic sword you find and get yourself a bow you have a bunch of extra HP. When your spells run out you can don armour and still serve as a backup fighter.
It gets really useful by the time you hit about 9th level and can give yourself some magical armour and so on.

Really a Min Maxers ideal world.

Quote from: jadrax;522407I am not sure if you don't know what the term means or if your not sure what he is implying with it. But the term comes from electrical amplification, it basically is when you feed the output from an amplifier into the same amplifier, so you get an endless cycle of making the signal louder and louder. (Normally until the amp distorts the signal so much is unusable).

In D&D terms, I think jibbajabba is saying that to more you make dependent on one thing to more powerful that thing becomes.

A classic example would be a system where knowledge skill tests are based on Intelligence and a skill, and all knowledge skills are equal to your intelligence. At that point, someone with a high intelligence would have *double* the bonus of someone with a low intelligence. which may or may not have been your intent.

You have it exactly. So if high stats give you lots of bonuses and high stats give you access to powerful classes or let you dual class then you get a double benefit.

Multi Class is included to keep demihumans leveling with the humans.

Dual classing is for when you fuck up your character, and want a different one, but you're from the 70's or 80's and don't want to re roll.

That is all.  One is useful still (multi) and one is not (dual).

This has all reminded me why I ditched D&D for games without levels and classes, I must say.

Or you could, you know, just not use dual classes or multi-classes.  D&D works best with strict archetypes.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;522526Or you could, you know, just not use dual classes or multi-classes.  D&D works best with strict archetypes.

I'm firmly on Pundit's camp on this. I generally favor using classless systems (hello, Runequest/Legend) for the multi-talented heroes D&D doesn't always do justice, that are ubiquitous in fantasy fiction.

Hell, in my editions of choice (BECMI/RC, B/X, LL and now ACKS), it's sometimes easier to cobble together a new class, than to cook up some sort of dual-classing or multi-classing system. ACKS did a particularly good job of illustrating this flexibility with some of its classes, like the Assassin (pretty much a Fighter/Thief) and the Nightblade (an Elf/Thief), and the ACKS Companion should have a fairly elaborate subsystem for generating new character classes.

Quote from: jadrax;522407I am not sure if you don't know what the term means or if your not sure what he is implying with it. But the term comes from electrical amplification, it basically is when you feed the output from an amplifier into the same amplifier, so you get an endless cycle of making the signal louder and louder. (Normally until the amp distorts the signal so much is unusable).

In D&D terms, I think jibbajabba is saying that to more you make dependent on one thing to more powerful that thing becomes.

A classic example would be a system where knowledge skill tests are based on Intelligence and a skill, and all knowledge skills are equal to your intelligence. At that point, someone with a high intelligence would have *double* the bonus of someone with a low intelligence. which may or may not have been your intent.

I understood what the term meant, just not its application to the discussion at hand; although, thank you for taking the time to explain it. :)  

Quote from: jibbajibba;522459You have it exactly. So if high stats give you lots of bonuses and high stats give you access to powerful classes or let you dual class then you get a double benefit.

I have no issue with this as it pertains to the game.

I'm working on a modular approach myself.  I'm using M&M3E as the core rules, and devising packages, that a player would then choose from to build a character.  Race is a package, upbringing is a package, the core skills of a career are a package, etc.  I'm only at an outline stage at the moment, but ideally a starting character would have enough points to have a race, an upbringing, a core class, and then several 'tweaks' on the core class, plus a few spare points for individualization.  Someone who chose to 'multi-class' would take two 'core' packages, but would have fewer points left over for tweaking and customization.  Both at creation and long-term, such a hybrid character should be more flexible than a pure class character, but should also be less powerful in either focus than a pure character.

Quote from: Silverlion;522254Would you like me, think that it was always backwards?

I used to make the same argument, but it's important to understand that AD&D multiclassing is massively busted unless it's coupled with demihuman level limits. It's been years since I actually did the math, but basically a multiclassed character is always going to be significantly superior to a single-classed character. The only way they make sense is if you assume that they'll hit their level caps and then the single-classed humans will have a chance to shine again.

(In actual practice, virtually no one used demihuman level limits -- including TSR's designers -- and multiclassing was just stupidly busted even if you accepted the "you suck now, but you'll be better later" method of game balance.)

Dual-classing, of course, was stupidly broken in the other direction: Any dual-class character just ends up completely hosed compared to a single class character (and even more hosed compared to a multiclass character.)

Ultimately, dual-classing is a bit more useful (which is why 3E ditched AD&D-style multiclassing and opted to fix the dual-classing rules so they sucked a little less), but generally breaks horribly if you get any caster classes involved. (If you get prestige classes, then it breaks horribly in the other direction because prestige classes -- particularly caster prestige classes -- were almost universally broken at a fundamental level.)

Quote from: estar;522403Recently 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. To our surprise he was able to make a 3rd level Bard dual classed as a 5th level Fighter and a 5th Level Thief.

The implication of this is that in AD&D 1st; Dual Classing isn't as onerous as it first appears.

This is because you allowed this guy to sidestep the actual consequences of dual-classing: If you use any abilities from your previous class, your XP for the encounter is nullified and your XP for the adventure is halved.

If he had actually been adventuring with the party, he would have either (a) spent a great deal of time severely gimped compared to the other PCs or (b) had significantly less XP than the other PCs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;523614Dual-classing, of course, was stupidly broken in the other direction: Any dual-class character just ends up completely hosed compared to a single class character (and even more hosed compared to a multiclass character.)

Ultimately, dual-classing is a bit more useful (which is why 3E ditched AD&D-style multiclassing and opted to fix the dual-classing rules so they sucked a little less), but generally breaks horribly if you get any caster classes involved. (If you get prestige classes, then it breaks horribly in the other direction because prestige classes -- particularly caster prestige classes -- were almost universally broken at a fundamental level.)

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

The implication of this is that in AD&D 1st; Dual Classing isn't as onerous as it first appears.

This is because you allowed this guy to sidestep the actual consequences of dual-classing: If you use any abilities from your previous class, your XP for the encounter is nullified and your XP for the adventure is halved.

If he had actually been adventuring with the party, he would have either (a) spent a great deal of time severely gimped compared to the other PCs or (b) had significantly less XP than the other PCs.

This is not true.
In the event of a Bard as Estar details the Dual class rules do not apply because the Bard is a special case (as pertains to his current bardic rank he would have this issue whilst levelling of course) .

Also the XP limit and penalties only apply while your new class is lower than your old class and they don't apply to passive abilites like HP, exceptional Strength.

See my example of a Dual classed Wizard above as an example of how you can use dual classing in a totally abusive manner and do so for very little XP lag on the rest of the party.

Quote from: jibbajibba;523942This is not true.
In the event of a Bard as Estar details the Dual class rules do not apply because the Bard is a special case (as pertains to his current bardic rank he would have this issue whilst levelling of course).

No. You're wrong.

The AD&D1 bard required the character to start as fighters then dual-class to thief. They would then need to spend 1-4 levels as a thief, at which point they could dual-class into bard.

But it's only upon the final dual-class into bard that they suddenly become uber-powered. During the time they were a thief, they would have been prohibited from using their fighter abilities. And it's specifically that period of normal dual-classing that Estar's "roll 'em up after they've finished dual-classing" method allowed them to sidestep.

(Of course, on top of all this, bards are specifically shoved into an appendix and called out as being something that is "often not allowed by Dungeon Masters" specifically because it contravenes the normal dual-classing rules. So they're a bad example of "typical dual-classing" in any case.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;524586No. You're wrong.

The AD&D1 bard required the character to start as fighters then dual-class to thief. They would then need to spend 1-4 levels as a thief, at which point they could dual-class into bard.

But it's only upon the final dual-class into bard that they suddenly become uber-powered. During the time they were a thief, they would have been prohibited from using their fighter abilities. And it's specifically that period of normal dual-classing that Estar's "roll 'em up after they've finished dual-classing" method allowed them to sidestep.

(Of course, on top of all this, bards are specifically shoved into an appendix and called out as being something that is "often not allowed by Dungeon Masters" specifically because it contravenes the normal dual-classing rules. So they're a bad example of "typical dual-classing" in any case.)

Um that was what I said.....
(as pertains to his current bardic rank he would have this issue whilst levelling of course) .

For someone who likes to throw round the label of illiterate a lot you might learn to read :)

But the real example of note is the Fighter Magic User I outlined pages back.

start as a fighter get to second level - 2001 XP.
Change to a Magic user.
You are now a first level MU with 2d10 HP. the rest of the party are 2nd level apart from the ones that died who are 1st again.
When you reach 3rd level you are now a 3rd level Magic user who can use magic swords etc etc , don armour when they run out of spells etc ...
and the rest of the party are .... 3rd level as well....... because you are only 2001 Xp behind them.
Now to me that seems a bit like min maxing......

for the OP, if you want the multi-/dual-class thing, i think you have it right, it would be better the other way around, IMO.

personally i like the 3.x way best, though.  as long as you could come up with appropriate in-game rationale, switch classes however you want to, as long as you meet any requirements, of course.

Quote from: beeber;524670for the OP, if you want the multi-/dual-class thing, i think you have it right, it would be better the other way around, IMO.

personally i like the 3.x way best, though.  as long as you could come up with appropriate in-game rationale, switch classes however you want to, as long as you meet any requirements, of course.

As long as your caster level is your total character level I'm fine with 3e style multiclassing. Dual Classing is just stupid unless it's a 1e Bard which doesn't follow the actual rules really or if it's 4e style multiclassing.