Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3878060" data-attributes="member: 54792">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).&nbsp;&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; Realism is stretched certainly, and logic isn't that important (its a fantasy game afterall).&nbsp; However, each game (and group playing that particular game) has its limits in plausability.&nbsp; I think 3E has stretched this concept (in terms of multi-classing) to its extreme.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; But then others prefer this kind of game...so to each their own.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I understand the game was heavily story driven though, so I could see the &quot;evolution&quot; in taking new classes as a reflection of this system.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; &nbsp; Occasionally a DM might give a PC some sort of skills to reflect the players attempt at focusing on a &quot;way of life&quot; such as picking up some minor tracking skills in the forest (say 30%) or ability to navigate at sea.&nbsp; But this was not BTB.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3878060, member: 54792"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification