OSR Old school wizards, how do you play level 1?

[Lanefan]

(The "character with two classes" rule is one of those weird rules that people misapply more than almost any other one.)

Yeah, it's a dumb one. Why Humans couldn't use the same multiclassing mechanics as Elves etc. is beyond me, and dual-classing as implemented simply doesn't make any fictional sense.

I've seen one (1) character dual-class in all the games I've run, and he was a special case to begin with: a Cavalier who always wanted to be a Paladin but didn't have the Charisma for it. After numerous quests etc. over 8 levels of Cavalier he managed to jump up his Cha to the required 17, and I let him dual-class into Paladin at that point. He started over as a P-1 (but with a boatload of hit points!) and eventually got to P-9/Cvr-8.

That was the now-legendary Sir Kalvin of Hobbes.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it's a dumb one. Why Humans couldn't use the same multiclassing mechanics as Elves etc. is beyond me, and dual-classing as implemented simply doesn't make any fictional sense.

I've seen one (1) character dual-class in all the games I've run, and he was a special case to begin with: a Cavalier who always wanted to be a Paladin but didn't have the Charisma for it. After numerous quests etc. over 8 levels of Cavalier he managed to jump up his Cha to the required 17, and I let him dual-class into Paladin at that point. He started over as a P-1 (but with a boatload of hit points!) and eventually got to P-9/Cvr-8.

That was the now-legendary Sir Kalvin of Hobbes.

I saw it more than once, but less than 5 times. Not sure exactly where in there that number was, though. It has been a looooong time.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, it's a dumb one. Why Humans couldn't use the same multiclassing mechanics as Elves etc. is beyond me, and dual-classing as implemented simply doesn't make any fictional sense.

It's modeling a few fictional characters who started out with some training as one thing, then switched careers.

But yeah. To be fair, nearly all the multiclassing rules D&D has had over the years have been broken in one way or another. Perhaps the only exception was 4E (both systems; feat/paragon was arguably underpowered but functional, and the more complex Gestalt class system was complex but seemed to work well and be balanced).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Yeah, it's a dumb one. Why Humans couldn't use the same multiclassing mechanics as Elves etc. is beyond me, and dual-classing as implemented simply doesn't make any fictional sense.

I've seen one (1) character dual-class in all the games I've run, and he was a special case to begin with: a Cavalier who always wanted to be a Paladin but didn't have the Charisma for it. After numerous quests etc. over 8 levels of Cavalier he managed to jump up his Cha to the required 17, and I let him dual-class into Paladin at that point. He started over as a P-1 (but with a boatload of hit points!) and eventually got to P-9/Cvr-8.

That was the now-legendary Sir Kalvin of Hobbes.

So, I don't mind your house-ruling, because that seems cool. And I'm a fan of cool! (But also stupid ... from the players ... because to multiclass from Cavalier to Paladin is weird....).


....That said, and I don't have access to UA handy, but the requirements to MC into a 1e Paladin were that you needed a 17 in ... wait for it ....
Strength
Intelligence
Wisdom
Constitution
AND Charisma.

Yeah. Because the way they did it, it was principal attributes. It wasn't the "gain XP attributes." It wasn't the "single bestest attribute." It was every attribute that was listed with a minimum (with one class exception, because why not?). So for Paladins ...
To become a paladin a character must be human, have a strength of not less than 12, a minimum intelligence of 9, a wisdom of 13 or more, a minimum constitution of 9, and not less than 17 charisma.

That's right. They had 5 principal attributes. Ugh.


*The fighter is the exception, because it was the only one that actually said, "The principal attribute of the fighter is strength." Why? I dunno. Because every rule has an exception to the exception, I guess?

 

[Voadam]

So, I don't mind your house-ruling, because that seems cool. And I'm a fan of cool! (But also stupid ... from the players ... because to multiclass from Cavalier to Paladin is weird....).


....That said, and I don't have access to UA handy, but the requirements to MC into a 1e Paladin were that you needed a 17 in ... wait for it ....
Strength
Intelligence
Wisdom
Constitution
AND Charisma.

Yeah. Because the way they did it, it was principal attributes. It wasn't the "gain XP attributes." It wasn't the "single bestest attribute." It was every attribute that was listed with a minimum (with one class exception, because why not?). So for Paladins ...
To become a paladin a character must be human, have a strength of not less than 12, a minimum intelligence of 9, a wisdom of 13 or more, a minimum constitution of 9, and not less than 17 charisma.

That's right. They had 5 principal attributes. Ugh.


*The fighter is the exception, because it was the only one that actually said, "The principal attribute of the fighter is strength." Why? I dunno. Because every rule has an exception to the exception, I guess?

I don't think principal is defined as every attribute with a minimum in a class. The single example given would not comply.

"A magic-user must have an intelligence of no less than 9 and a minimum dexterity of 6."

"Example: A character with ability scores of 15 strength, 17 intelligence, 12
wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a fighter. After attaining 6th level, the player switches the character to magic-user."

Also the one example of a specified principal attribute is only half the minimum attributes listed for the class.

"The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think principal is defined as every attribute with a minimum in a class. The single example given would not comply.

"A magic-user must have an intelligence of no less than 9 and a minimum dexterity of 6."

"Example: A character with ability scores of 15 strength, 17 intelligence, 12
wisdom, 10 dexterity, 16 constitution, and 7 charisma is begun as a fighter. After attaining 6th level, the player switches the character to magic-user."

Also the one example of a specified principal attribute is only half the minimum attributes listed for the class.

"The principal attribute of a fighter is strength. To become a fighter, a character must have a minimum strength of 9 and a constitution of 7 or greater"

Q. Are all of the attributes having required minimums to be construed as “principal attributes” for that class with regard to two-classed characters?

A. Yes, with two exceptions. For the purpose of determining whether a character is eligible to take up a second class, principal attributes for each class are considered to be these: cleric, wisdom only; druid, wisdom and charisma; fighter, strength only; paladin, everything but dexterity; ranger, everything but dexterity and charisma; magic-user, intelligence only; illusionist, dexterity and intelligence; thief, dexterity only; assassin, dexterity, intelligence, and strength; and monk, everything but charisma and intelligence. This includes every ability for which a required minimum is given, except for the fighter’s constitution, which must be at least 7, and the magic-user’s dexterity, which the Players Handbook says must be at least 6. The first exception is made because “The principal attribute of a fighter is strength,” but constitution isn’t mentioned in the same sentence (PH, page 22). A “minimum dexterity of 6” is required for magic-users (page 25), but this is superfluous, since a character with a dexterity of 5 or lower is always a cleric (page 11). Note that the principal attribute(s) for each class may include abilities in addition to those that apply toward a bonus to earned experience. To limit the definition of “principal attributes” to only those abilities that pertain to the experience bonus would make the system unbalanced and unplayable — unbalanced because then it would be easier to become a two-classed paladin than a two-classed ranger, and unplayable because the assassin and monk never get an experience bonus, and so by this definition would not have any “principal attributes.”

Source- Dragon Magazine #64, Sage Advice (again, these are official).

Again, I enjoy good rules discussions, but at a certain point don't people realize that I put in a little work before making pronouncements? Are people just into torturing me?:

 

[Moonmover]

The notion that D&D games used to be people sneaking through dungeons, largely avoiding combat, is revisionist history.

History is not in question here. The OP asked how people are playing OSR magic-users now.

 

[Voadam]

I pulled up 64 on my CD files and there it is.

That is certainly an interesting interpretation of the PH rules, that the SA interpretation of principal applies to everything except the two classes used as examples, including the only one that explicitly lists its principal attribute, and obviously don't use xp bonus attributes because while that would work with the given example you would have to make exceptions for two classes.

The logic is almost like saying use the non proficiency penalties when you use a weapon not permitted by your class. The difference being that SA said not to use the non proficiency penalties.

I don't see an author listed, is that Gygax?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't see an author listed, is that Gygax?

I don’t know off the top of my head.

Dragon 39 is the last Sage Advice credited to a single author (that, and all prior, are Jean Wells). After … the whole thing, it came back in Dragon 42 and was from then on credited to multiple authors, including Wells, Gygax, Ward, Niebling and others.

 

[Maxperson]

Q. Are all of the attributes having required minimums to be construed as “principal attributes” for that class with regard to two-classed characters?

A. Yes, with two exceptions. For the purpose of determining whether a character is eligible to take up a second class, principal attributes for each class are considered to be these: cleric, wisdom only; druid, wisdom and charisma; fighter, strength only; paladin, everything but dexterity; ranger, everything but dexterity and charisma; magic-user, intelligence only; illusionist, dexterity and intelligence; thief, dexterity only; assassin, dexterity, intelligence, and strength; and monk, everything but charisma and intelligence. This includes every ability for which a required minimum is given, except for the fighter’s constitution, which must be at least 7, and the magic-user’s dexterity, which the Players Handbook says must be at least 6. The first exception is made because “The principal attribute of a fighter is strength,” but constitution isn’t mentioned in the same sentence (PH, page 22). A “minimum dexterity of 6” is required for magic-users (page 25), but this is superfluous, since a character with a dexterity of 5 or lower is always a cleric (page 11). Note that the principal attribute(s) for each class may include abilities in addition to those that apply toward a bonus to earned experience. To limit the definition of “principal attributes” to only those abilities that pertain to the experience bonus would make the system unbalanced and unplayable — unbalanced because then it would be easier to become a two-classed paladin than a two-classed ranger, and unplayable because the assassin and monk never get an experience bonus, and so by this definition would not have any “principal attributes.”

Source- Dragon Magazine #64, Sage Advice (again, these are official).

Again, I enjoy good rules discussions, but at a certain point don't people realize that I put in a little work before making pronouncements? Are people just into torturing me?:

So first, I'm with you on what stats count as principal. That said, I enjoy torturing you on this topic because the old Sage Advice is official yes, but so is the 5e Sage Advice that says that the spell See Invisibility doesn't let you see invisibility. It's official, but it's just official advice on how to rule things and even if it comes from a designer, it's not necessarily correct. I've seen designers get things wrong more than once.

Besides, I'm willing to bet it was a small minority of players that even bought the magazine, let alone read Sage Advice or for that matter would remember it later on when needed.