Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8264465" data-attributes="member: 6777737">I'm not arguing that the bard is using the OD&D rules or that the class as presented predates everything in AD&D. I'm arguing that when they wrote the AD&D PHB they were not limited to thinking of class changes in only the ways outlined by the AD&D PHB rules. Other rules already existed for class change.Further, I'm arguing that we don't know the order that the rules in the AD&D PHB were written. The 1e bard could have been written before the dual class rules as presented existed. We can't just say, "these are in the same book they must've been developed concurrently and must reference each other." We all know that RPG design in the 1970s wasn't remotely that well organized.Are you arguing that the bard entry doesn't read how it does?Look, there are many ways that the bard doesn't fit with dual class rules.1. Different ability prerequisites. They should be Str 15, Dex 17, Wis 17, Cha 17. They're Str 15, Dex 15, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 15, Cha 15.2. Different class levels. Instead of 2 to any time thereafter, it's fighter 5-7, thief 5-9, druid in exactly that order.3. Note that because the restriction is 5-7 and 5-9, you can be a fighter 5/thief 5/bard (druid) X. Dual class rules normally require that you exceed your previous class. The bard entry clearly doesn't do that.4. The class never gets better at combat than it's fighter level, regardless of what druid level it reaches.5. It progresses as a druid, but then it doesn't cast higher than 12th level until bard level 23.This is not how dual class works. If the class breaks the dual class rules with the above, why must it follow the others?More than that... the entire game is filled with bespoke, one-off rules for everything. That was the whole problem with the game in the 20th century. The idea that two remarkably similar systems would use completely incompatible rules is entirely consistent with AD&D.Yes, but we don't know the order that the AD&D PHB was written. It seems unlikely that he started at page 1 and just kept writing until he reached the end. We don't know if bard came first or if dual class rules did. We know that the idea of a class change pre-dates AD&D, so we don't need to assume that the rules as they exist in the AD&D PHB for dual classing existed when bard was written.No, I disagree. I think it's much, much closer to how bards change class. There is no restriction on losing abilities or limiting your abilities until you reach a higher level or anything of the sort. The only restrictions are "unmodified 16+ in new class's prime requisite," "clerics can't become magic-users and vice-versa" and "not recommended". None of the other limitations exist. Indeed, the rules here don't tell you how to handle it at all.Yes, but that still doesn't mean that the way 1e AD&D bard works is that it must use 1e AD&D dual class rules. It doesn't mean that when the dual class rules contradict the bard rules that you must follow the dual class rules.</blockquote>

Verification