Ranger REG
Explorer
ROTFLMAO!!!!!SuStel said:
"Dominance of humanity." What a laugh. It will be a dead species soon.
I miss Dual Classing and the power of nostalgia
- Thread starter phoenixgod2000
- Start date
"Dominance of humanity." What a laugh. It will be a dead species soon.
FWIW OD&D doesn't explicitly limit class-changing to humans, it's just that since the only non-human race with more than one choice of class in the boxed set is elves, and they all switch classes automatically, it's de facto a human-only option. But, once the thief class is added in Supplement I, if we assume the same class-changing rules still apply (i.e. must have a score of 16+ in the prime requisite of the new class; clerics can't become magic-users or vice versa) there's nothing really to prohibit, say, an enterprising hobbit with Dex 16+ from working up to 4th level as fighter and then switching over to become a thief...
Interesting topic.
The entire subject of dual/multi-classing in any FRPG centers around 2 concepts: realism (what is logical within a given reality presented by your GM) and playability (what rules allow the game to both be fun to play over time and also give a sense of balance and order that allows a player to progress and develop). GMs of FRPGs supply the player with a fantasy reality (typically similar to our own (gravety, need to sleep, eat, etc.) but with a more primitive technology, monsters, magic and the like). Realism is stretched certainly, and logic isn't that important (its a fantasy game afterall). However, each game (and group playing that particular game) has its limits in plausability. I think 3E has stretched this concept (in terms of multi-classing) to its extreme. Personally I find 3Es rules governing learning skills and feats as well as picking up new classes (the fighter/druid/monk/rouge say) both illogical (I would assume it takes years of practice to become a 1st level wizard or cleric, not so in 3E) and counterproductive (in the sense that variation seems to disappear compared to other FRPGs). But then others prefer this kind of game...so to each their own.
I was most comfortable with 1Es rules regarding dual classing and multi-classing (demihumans having a natural affinity due to their race) and only exceptional humans with intense study being able to pull this off. In real life, think how hard it would be to really learn to pick someones pocket without being noticed, or to learn to use plate armor and weapons...hell it took knights years of training at a young age to pick this up.
As for 2E, I never really played it. I understand the game was heavily story driven though, so I could see the "evolution" in taking new classes as a reflection of this system. In 1E a fighter who started out as a sailor/pirate type could evolve into a woodsman like character, but with no real changes to his class abilities (in the end a fighter is a fighter). Destinctions like this were made in game play (what armor you wore, how you behaved) and how the player thought of his character in his mind. Occasionally a DM might give a PC some sort of skills to reflect the players attempt at focusing on a "way of life" such as picking up some minor tracking skills in the forest (say 30%) or ability to navigate at sea. But this was not BTB.
The entire subject of dual/multi-classing in any FRPG centers around 2 concepts: realism (what is logical within a given reality presented by your GM) and playability (what rules allow the game to both be fun to play over time and also give a sense of balance and order that allows a player to progress and develop). GMs of FRPGs supply the player with a fantasy reality (typically similar to our own (gravety, need to sleep, eat, etc.) but with a more primitive technology, monsters, magic and the like). Realism is stretched certainly, and logic isn't that important (its a fantasy game afterall). However, each game (and group playing that particular game) has its limits in plausability. I think 3E has stretched this concept (in terms of multi-classing) to its extreme. Personally I find 3Es rules governing learning skills and feats as well as picking up new classes (the fighter/druid/monk/rouge say) both illogical (I would assume it takes years of practice to become a 1st level wizard or cleric, not so in 3E) and counterproductive (in the sense that variation seems to disappear compared to other FRPGs). But then others prefer this kind of game...so to each their own.
I was most comfortable with 1Es rules regarding dual classing and multi-classing (demihumans having a natural affinity due to their race) and only exceptional humans with intense study being able to pull this off. In real life, think how hard it would be to really learn to pick someones pocket without being noticed, or to learn to use plate armor and weapons...hell it took knights years of training at a young age to pick this up.
As for 2E, I never really played it. I understand the game was heavily story driven though, so I could see the "evolution" in taking new classes as a reflection of this system. In 1E a fighter who started out as a sailor/pirate type could evolve into a woodsman like character, but with no real changes to his class abilities (in the end a fighter is a fighter). Destinctions like this were made in game play (what armor you wore, how you behaved) and how the player thought of his character in his mind. Occasionally a DM might give a PC some sort of skills to reflect the players attempt at focusing on a "way of life" such as picking up some minor tracking skills in the forest (say 30%) or ability to navigate at sea. But this was not BTB.
Last edited:
nerfherder
Adventurer
Is that a 4e scoop?Ranger REG said:ROTFLMAO!!!!!
"Dominance of humanity." What a laugh. It will be a dead species soon.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Nope. In real life, as my wishful thinking goes...nerfherder said:Is that a 4e scoop?
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
nerfherder
Adventurer
Er, ok...Ranger REG said:Nope. In real life, as my wishful thinking goes...
Ranger REG
Explorer
Relax. Aside from my desire to exterminate my own species, I'm really a nice guy.nerfherder said:Er, ok...
Desdichado
Hero
You, sir, are very bizarre. And I don't mean that in a "Michael Jackson in the 80s" weird-cool kinda way, I mean that in a "Michael Jackson now" creepy-scary kinda way.Ranger REG said:Relax. Aside from my desire to exterminate my own species, I'm really a nice guy.
By the way, what's up with saying humaniti? You do realize that the Traveller universe is a work of fiction, right?
nerfherder
Adventurer
OK, I'm kinda curious, but I think it would be off-limits for ENW. Care to expand on Circvs Maximvs ?Ranger REG said:Relax. Aside from my desire to exterminate my own species, I'm really a nice guy.
Similar Threads
