I miss Dual Classing and the power of nostalgia

[phoenixgod2000]

With the advent of 4e coming I find my interest in 3e dying out. I do believe that on the whole Fourth will be a better game although there are certainly aspects of it that I find a bit distasteful. Third ed while possessing many attributes I like, on the whole just seemed too video-gamey or wargame like rather than the game I was used to playing. maybe that is needed now, I don't know. But I do know that I don't like the trend.

But more and more lately I find myself truly missing second edition. I miss kits and I miss half elves with wierd class combinations and I miss seperate leveling tables. I miss bladesingers being a good class and I miss magic items that meant something instead of ornamentation

But most of all I miss Dual Classing.

I know that there are plenty of people who hated the old system and there certainly aspects of it that could be improved, but over all I found it a great system, especially for portraying characters with a lot of history, who switched jobs and roles over the course of time. From Conan to the Seven Sisters, I think the old way worked a lot better that the stacking of levels in third ed. I almost always played human characters and Dual Classing was my bread and butter. I remember one character who dual classed four times over the course of about five campaigns. Started out as a pirate fighter, went bard, became a wizard and finally evolved into the high druid of the seas. An awesome mess of a character that could not exist in the 3e the way he did in second. I miss unplanned, spontaneous character growth like that.

But do I really. If I were to play second ed, would it be as enjoyable as it was in my memories or are the rose colored glasses of history blinding me.

So is anyone else feeling the second ed nostalgia now or is it just me? And what did you think of dual classing?

Jon

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I share your nostalgia for the good old days, but let's be honest -- dual classing as a mechanic was about as broken as AD&D got. Disgusting Characters much?

 

[WhatGravitas]

Started out as a pirate fighter, went bard, became a wizard and finally evolved into the high druid of the seas. An awesome mess of a character that could not exist in the 3e the way he did in second. I miss unplanned, spontaneous character growth like that.

You can do that now as well. Just your spellcasting is baaad. But reading the 4E blogs, and news makes me hopeful:

He said that one of the goals they were shooting for was not to punish characters for cool story choices--like the rogue who has a conversion experience and multiclasses into cleric. 'That's a great story,' he said, 'but the way 3E works, it makes for a lousy character'. The idea is that if you multiclass, your new abilities will be useful to a character at your level right away.

(source)

That'd be the cool story-esque part, without the... urgh!-factor of 2E (clarification: with urgh!-factor I mean the dualclassing mechanic, not 2E in general).

Cheers, LT.

 

[Agamon]

Dual classing is one of the first things I think of when I think about why I dislike AD&D.

And Lord Tirian is right. You can sure make an awesome mess of a character in 3E, and you don't have to be human to do it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

But do I really. If I were to play second ed, would it be as enjoyable as it was in my memories or are the rose colored glasses of history blinding me.

The only way to tell is to give it a try and see. If you enjoy the actual experience, now, then it's not rose-colored glasses. If you find the actual experience, now, a let-down and not what you remembered, then you were wearing rose-colored glasses.

The proof is in the pudding. (Also, Dragonsfoot has a 2E forum, if you want to talk to gamers who are currently playing 2E.)

So is anyone else feeling the second ed nostalgia now or is it just me?

Well, I never got into 2E, but I've been enjoying the older editions since I returned to them. In my case, it's not mere nostalgia; I've found that I prefer the play experience from the older editions. (I've been playing OD&D[1974], lately, but have also played AD&D[1E], B/X, and C&C within the past year.)

And what did you think of dual classing?

Never used it, much, actually. There's a version of dual classing in EGG's optional C&C rules download that doesn't sound too bad.

 

[Goblinoid Games]

But do I really. If I were to play second ed, would it be as enjoyable as it was in my memories or are the rose colored glasses of history blinding me.

Personally, I think the entire idea of "progress" in RPGs is a myth. Sure, companies change game rules, but in most cases calling something "better" is all in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

I'd say, don't ask us if you'd have fun. Set up a game, get playing, and come back and tell us if you had fun!

Why settle for someone else's "old-school feel" when you can just go for the real thing?

 

[airwalkrr]

2e is my least favorite edition, even lesser than 3.0 (which suffered from some of the worst gaming oversights ever). I'm only talking about mechanics though. It was a mechanical nightmare to which I strongly prefer 1e. I never even saw the point behind most 2e changes. Now dual-classing I did like, still do. Still like multiclassing as well. But there were some problems with it. (Not that 3e is without multiclassing problems of course.)

First, there is a meta reason in that players typically frowned on the lack of demihuman ability to pick up new classes. And honestly, it was a very reasonable criticism. Why should humans be the only ones who are able to learn a new class when demihumans are of the same proximate intelligence? But even dual classing had its issues, primarily that you could never return to a former class. Silliness. A soldier who works as a munitions expert for several years and then changes jobs to become an artilleryman shouldn't lose the ability to go back and learn more about munitions later. The only reason that restriction was placed upon dual-classing was a meta reason of power.

Now I did agree that you shouldn't be able to use your former class's skills to earn XP towards your new class. How do you gain a practical understanding of wizardry if you do nothing but swing your sword at stuff? (This is a problem in 3e too, btw. I typically don't allow players to put ranks into skills they haven't been using.) But in my estimation, dual-classing rules were only half-written. They would need a few more details worked out before I could accept them. I've always used house rules for multiclassing and dual-classing for these reasons, regardless of edition. I still have yet to find the perfect fix.

 

[pawsplay]

Four classes mean a 15 in your original prime requisite, plus 16 in three other ability scores. It's hard to get nostalgic for needing really high, randomly generated ability scores to dual class.

 

[Warren Okuma]

I share your nostalgia for the good old days, but let's be honest -- dual classing as a mechanic was about as broken as AD&D got. Disgusting Characters much?

And tastes... kind of munchkiny and... spicy!

 

[Hairfoot]

You can do that now as well. Just your spellcasting is baaad.

Actually, I've never been bothered by the scarifice PCs make to change classes. I quite like the idea of a character having to survive on what he's learned in his original profession while he picks up the basics of a new one.

From a story point of view, even if the 8th level party fighter has watched and learned from the party's wizard, all he's learning is the stuff the wiz learned as an adolescent apprentice. I'll be disappointed if 4E allows the fighter8/wiz1 to start slinging spells like a pro.