D&D 1E 1E-style dual-classing?

[Quartz]

Dual-classing was something that was horrible while you were enduring it and overpowered in the long run, so if that's what you like about it I would be interested to see what you propose.

I don't have a particular proposal in mind, just wondering - see below.

They are suppose to have Gestalt rules in the DMG (unless this got cut) which is also want you're talking about just not as restrictive as 1e dual classing. I would also not allow that unless the entire game was based on everyone using those rules.

I think I suggested Gestalt a while back in another thread.

I'd need to hear a very good, clear pitch as to what, exactly, the intention was; why the existing multiclass rules wouldn't support the concept in question; and why dual class style multiclassing would work for it.

It seems to me - and note that I've yet to play - that 5E is not so good for multiclassing as 3E. For instance, in 5E feats / stat increases are tied to class level, not character level; for instance in 3E certain classes meshed very well - fighter and rogue, and fighter (or knight) and monk are two excellent examples. Therefore I seek an alternative, and seek to draw on the experiences of those who do play and especially those who have played at a variety of levels.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Dual-classing both used a cost by class-level mode.
So, Human Fighter makes it to 5th level, and takes the several years downtime (yes, that's buried in the rules) to become a wizard, he's now an XP0, but somewhere around 30-40 HP, level 1 wizard, who saves as the better of Wiz 1 or Fighter 5. He then adventures to level 5 as a wizard, and now can wield swords without penalty, and cast magic, but can't cast in armor.

Yup. I remember. It is one of those things that is somewhere between Really Awful and Really Good, but usually Really Weird, depending on the campaign style.

That Level 1 Magic User with 0 XP and 40 HP is actually going to race through the first few levels, because he is probably hanging out with Level 5 normal PCs and sucking down unearned XP from the actual deserving heroes, who tolerate this choice to sandbag when lives are on the line, for some reason.

3e multiclassing was basically a much less silly version of 1e dual classing. No, it often did not quite work (for spellcasters, primarily), but it was plenty playable for many kinds of PCs.

5e seems to have corrected the egregious errors of 3e multiclassing.

I am not really sure what the OP wants. 3e gestalt was for scratching the 1e multiclassing itch, which made a degree of sense because of how wonky spellcaster multiclassing turned out. But 5e gives you sensible options like Fighter2/WizardX that will be plenty playable standing next to a <spellcaster>Y.

 

[Jester David]

1e/2e dual classing is pretty similar to 3e/5e multiclassing, in that you end a career of one class and begin to take levels in another. Only you get to use the abilities of your first class at all times. It fills the same basic concept: you advance in one class and then change your career.

Now, 1e/2e demihuman multiclassing is something else. Well... only at 1st level.

 

[aramis erak]

1e/2e dual classing is pretty similar to 3e/5e multiclassing, in that you end a career of one class and begin to take levels in another. Only you get to use the abilities of your first class at all times. It fills the same basic concept: you advance in one class and then change your career.

Now, 1e/2e demihuman multiclassing is something else. Well... only at 1st level.

No, at all levels.

AD&D multiclassing: Average the HP rolls for a given level (levels not yet reached count 0), use the best save, relax some of the casting restrictions, split non-class-specific XP evenly amongst all classes, can't add new classes later, proficiencies gained separately for each class, but initial ones were the higher of the two classes and cheaper for each proficiency.

And, just to complete the discussion within my own frames of reference...

Original D&D, it was essentially similar to dual classing, except that the Elf (and only an Elf, in the little box) could choose which of their two (MU or Fighter) they were on an adventure by adventure basis, and advance both through the campaign; how that worked was vague. Supplement 1 made it clearer, in that F/C and F/MU/Th divide all experience evenly. Hobbits and Dwarves got to be F/Th, and finally got racial clerics mentioned, but not allowed as PC's... Early printings of AD&D 1E didn't allow for Dwarven, Elf, or Halfling Clerics, either.


And Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning, and Alston all used racial prefigured multi-classing. An XP track that was higher than either class, but less than the sum of the two at the same level, a hit die type between the two, reduced restrictions on the spellcasting side, and a single block of spells on the Elven Treekeeper (~ F/MU/Cleric). All classes advanced together... over 2 dozen such classes existed later in the game (thanks to the PC and GAZ lines)... and the racial standard for elves was, as in OE, F-MU, but a warrior-only elf was added... and elves and hominids could become spellcasters later in life; the difference between the Elf and the Fighter was added, and MU or Cleric ability was always X levels behind...

 

[the Jester]

It seems to me - and note that I've yet to play - that 5E is not so good for multiclassing as 3E. For instance, in 5E feats / stat increases are tied to class level, not character level; for instance in 3E certain classes meshed very well - fighter and rogue, and fighter (or knight) and monk are two excellent examples. Therefore I seek an alternative, and seek to draw on the experiences of those who do play and especially those who have played at a variety of levels.

Hmm. I see that as a feature, not a bug. It's part of what encourages you to keep advancing in your existing class.

For the record, so far in my 5e game, I've got a bunch of pcs running around between 1st and (as of last night) 4th level; of them all, only one (3rd level) guy has multiclassed so far. He did so in order to gain the barbarian's ability to fight bare-chested, dressed up like Glen Danzig. Others have thought about multiclassing, but have found the next level option of their current class to be too tempting.

 

[Joe Liker]

It seems to me - and note that I've yet to play - that 5E is not so good for multiclassing as 3E. For instance, in 5E feats / stat increases are tied to class level, not character level; for instance in 3E certain classes meshed very well - fighter and rogue, and fighter (or knight) and monk are two excellent examples. Therefore I seek an alternative, and seek to draw on the experiences of those who do play and especially those who have played at a variety of levels.

I think your reservations about 5e multiclassing are completely unwarranted. It's a far, far, FAR better system than dual-classing in just about every respect.

If you don't want to delay your feat/stat gain, just level one class to 4 before starting the other class, then switch back when the second class gets to 4. That is far less cumbersome than having no access to the first class for half your career and never being able to level it up again.

Granted, if you choose the wrong mix of levels at character level 20, you might end up with one less feat, but presumably you've taken that into account and decided your particular mix of class features was worth the tradeoff. In any case it's still better than dual-classing.

 

[steeldragons]

So, I'm still confused...You want to be able to 3e multiclass via 1e Dual classing?

Like "I'm a fighter, level 1-2-3, and now I can be a monk, level 4?" Is that what you're aiming for?

Or is it you want 1e style multiclassing, "I'm a fighter/monk, levels 1/1-2/2-3/3", and are mistaking dual-classing as the same thing?

I'm really not sure why anyone would want to use 1e dual classing for anything. Doesn't make sense from a story perspective. Doesn't make sense from a mechanics perspective. It was, easily, one of the worst conceived "rules" sub-system of 1e. We never used it bitd. Even with druids, we just let the PCs start as druids...of course, then 2e came out and it was all good.

 

[Quartz]

So, I'm still confused...You want to be able to 3e multiclass via 1e Dual classing?

No.

 

[Tormyr]

Hmm. I see that as a feature, not a bug. It's part of what encourages you to keep advancing in your existing class.

For the record, so far in my 5e game, I've got a bunch of pcs running around between 1st and (as of last night) 4th level; of them all, only one (3rd level) guy has multiclassed so far. He did so in order to gain the barbarian's ability to fight bare-chested, dressed up like Glen Danzig. Others have thought about multiclassing, but have found the next level option of their current class to be too tempting.

I have a similar thing. I have a rogue 6/monk 1. The player took the level dip early to get the unarmored defense, but has not gone back to it yet to raise the monk damage dice.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Hmm. I see that as a feature, not a bug. It's part of what encourages you to keep advancing in your existing class.

Exactly. Level 2 and level 3 always provide strong class benefits. The strong class benefit of level 4 is the stat/feat gain. Without some kind of incentive a 2 or 3 level dip per class is potentially overpowered.

One could change this so that the stat/feat boost is based on character level, but it would probably require rejiggering the first 4 or 5 levels of every class.