D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[The Crimson Binome]

Broken how?

In general, you gained much more from multi-classing than you lost. A multi-class fighter/wizard was just better than a single-class fighter or wizard, in a lot of ways. Because of the exponential experience requirements, splitting your XP two ways meant that you were only about one level behind in each class compared to the single-class character, in a system that was already designed to accommodate fairly significant level gaps.

Multi-classing also significantly diminished the impact of the one major restriction on non-human races, which was the level cap. If an elf can't get past level 10 as a fighter, but can get up to level 15 as a mage, then the multi-class elf fighter/mage gets to keep progressing past where the elf fighter stops and eventually ends up as an elf mage 15 with bonus fighter powers.

Level caps were an important balancing measure against the superior stats and special abilities of non-human races. Elves started with some powerful bonuses, but couldn't raise as high in their class of choice. Anything that let them ignore that restriction, or delay its impact beyond the scope of the campaign, was a pure power boost.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

I'm reading through this thread and it's astonishing how much similarity and overlap there is between finding a player and finding a date.

But also, it makes perfect sense.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm reading through this thread and it's astonishing how much similarity and overlap there is between finding a player and finding a date.

But also, it makes perfect sense.

I could crosspost most of this thread in Vogue with just a few name changes and no one would notice. In fact that is how I wrote the Noble.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm reading through this thread and it's astonishing how much similarity and overlap there is between finding a player and finding a date.

But also, it makes perfect sense.

Oh shot, maybe there is a business opportunity for an app like tinder but for DnD. D&Dinder?

 

[Hussar]

I'm reading through this thread and it's astonishing how much similarity and overlap there is between finding a player and finding a date.

But also, it makes perfect sense.

Well, yes, of course it does.

You are going to spend tens, if not hundreds, of hours with this other person. If you don't know this person and the only common point you have (at the outset anyway) is that you both play the same game, it makes a great deal of sense that one needs to be extremely picky about who sits across the table.

Gaming with strangers is pretty much exactly like dating. Well, without all the squishy stuff usually.

 

[Lanefan]

In general, you gained much more from multi-classing than you lost. A multi-class fighter/wizard was just better than a single-class fighter or wizard, in a lot of ways. Because of the exponential experience requirements, splitting your XP two ways meant that you were only about one level behind in each class compared to the single-class character, in a system that was already designed to accommodate fairly significant level gaps.

Multi-classing also significantly diminished the impact of the one major restriction on non-human races, which was the level cap. If an elf can't get past level 10 as a fighter, but can get up to level 15 as a mage, then the multi-class elf fighter/mage gets to keep progressing past where the elf fighter stops and eventually ends up as an elf mage 15 with bonus fighter powers.

Level caps were an important balancing measure against the superior stats and special abilities of non-human races. Elves started with some powerful bonuses, but couldn't raise as high in their class of choice. Anything that let them ignore that restriction, or delay its impact beyond the scope of the campaign, was a pure power boost.

It depends on how restrictive the DM is, I think.

For example, while a F-MU in theory can wear any armour if the DM holds to the idea that wearing armour interferes with casting arcane spells then the character has to choose whether to tank or cast. Ditto for Fighter-Thieves. Also, if the DM enforced training rules and costs (and the table enforced equal treasury shares!) the multi-classed character (in theory) ended up financially poorer due to having to train more often, and thus didn't have as many magic items...which in 1e-2e can make a big difference.

Personally, I-as-DM don't like multi-classing in any edition for a bunch of reasons (though as player I don't mind it at all, for some of the same reasons!) and what I've done to make it less attractive in 1e is to make some class abilities only open to single-class characters e.g. weapon spec. for pure Fighters only, multi-class casters don't get quite as many spell slots, only single-class Druids can shapeshift, etc. And some classes - particularly Bard and Monk - can't multi-class at all as those classes really are full-time jobs.

The one I really had problems with back in the day was Ranger - people always multi-ed into it just to get the extra hit die. Out came the nerf-hammer... Otherwise, something else that tends to hurt multi-classers is their generally-lower hit point totals - they don't often have a high Con as they've had to focus on at least two other stats, and they're usually about one die behind the single-classers.

Lan-"bit I still far prefer the 2e multiclassing model over the 3e-and-forward model"-efan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It depends on how restrictive the DM is, I think.

For example, while a F-MU in theory can wear any armour if the DM holds to the idea that wearing armour interferes with casting arcane spells then the character has to choose whether to tank or cast. Ditto for Fighter-Thieves. Also, if the DM enforced training rules and costs (and the table enforced equal treasury shares!) the multi-classed character (in theory) ended up financially poorer due to having to train more often, and thus didn't have as many magic items...which in 1e-2e can make a big difference.

If anything can be said to be universally true of AD&D, it's that there was significant variation by DM. My DM didn't really give out many magic items, period, and also had a number of multi-classing restrictions (especially for divine casters), but I still don't think I ever saw an elf who wasn't multi-classed one way or the other. Being human was synonymous with being single-classed. Of course, small sample size could mean that it was all just personal preference. The armor restriction didn't really come up, either, since we had Mage Armor in 2E and that was as good as anything you could start with.

Otherwise, something else that tends to hurt multi-classers is their generally-lower hit point totals - they don't often have a high Con as they've had to focus on at least two other stats, and they're usually about one die behind the single-classers.

One of the reasons I preferred triple class fighter/mage/thieves was because they had a higher minimum HP, since you divided each hit die by the number of classes you had, but the minimum was +1. A level 10 fighter had a minimum of 10hp, but a fighter 8 / mage 7 / thief 9 had a minimum of 24hp. Having a high minimum was more important than having a higher potential maximum, since you still only healed one point per day, and the party wasn't going to wait around for one person to heal after everyone else was already at full.

Of course, we rolled 3d6 for stats and then arranged to taste, so it was rare for anyone to have high Con. Most people put their one decent stat into Strength (hit/damage) or Dex (AC) or Intelligence (spell learn chance), and having a mediocre Con wasn't a death sentence in those days as long as it didn't throw your HP adjustment into the negatives.

 

[Lanefan]

If anything can be said to be universally true of AD&D, it's that there was significant variation by DM. My DM didn't really give out many magic items, period, and also had a number of multi-classing restrictions (especially for divine casters), but I still don't think I ever saw an elf who wasn't multi-classed one way or the other. Being human was synonymous with being single-classed. Of course, small sample size could mean that it was all just personal preference. The armor restriction didn't really come up, either, since we had Mage Armor in 2E and that was as good as anything you could start with.

Fair enough.

We have multi-classing work the same for all races - easier that way - though some races simply cannot be some classes.

One of the reasons I preferred triple class fighter/mage/thieves was because they had a higher minimum HP, since you divided each hit die by the number of classes you had, but the minimum was +1. A level 10 fighter had a minimum of 10hp, but a fighter 8 / mage 7 / thief 9 had a minimum of 24hp. Having a high minimum was more important than having a higher potential maximum, since you still only healed one point per day, and the party wasn't going to wait around for one person to heal after everyone else was already at full.

Ah - I forgot about triple-classing; probably because I banned it well over 30 years ago.

Wouldn't you just roll an averaged hit die when your leading class bumped? Assuming an even split of xp* a F-MU-T would roll a d7 each time the Thief (the highest-level class) bumped. Some of those h.p. would be held in abeyance until the F bumped to 9th, as would some more for the MU side - it became a bookkeeping nightmare, which is but one of many reasons I turfed triple-classing shortly after the last ice age ended. In any case your guy here would have a minimum of 9, as he'd only had 9 dice worth of h.p. at level 8-7-9.

* - one of the truly wonderful things about 2e multiclassing is you can favour one class over another via your declared xp division, if the DM so allows. Thus, for example if you want to be mostly a Fighter but trail just a bit of MU along to allow you to cast Identify and so forth you can split your xp 90% Fighter / 10% Mage.

Of course, we rolled 3d6 for stats and then arranged to taste, so it was rare for anyone to have high Con. Most people put their one decent stat into Strength (hit/damage) or Dex (AC) or Intelligence (spell learn chance), and having a mediocre Con wasn't a death sentence in those days as long as it didn't throw your HP adjustment into the negatives.

And you also lost a Con point every time you died and came back - this is often our biggest reason for putting at least an average stat into Con - it affects your revival chance.

We've also always had it that your hit points are locked in when rolled, so if your Con changes later (up or down) your hit points remain what they were; but the new Con affects any subsequent rolls. This really helps prevent slow-motion death spirals via revived characters having fewer h.p. than before they died.

Lanefan

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wouldn't you just roll an averaged hit die when your leading class bumped?

In this case, the PHB actually spelled out the exact procedure to use, down to how you were supposed to round it. My example was actually the same one they used in the book, and you would roll d6/3 and d4/3 and d10/3 at the appropriate points.

* - one of the truly wonderful things about 2e multiclassing is you can favour one class over another via your declared xp division, if the DM so allows. Thus, for example if you want to be mostly a Fighter but trail just a bit of MU along to allow you to cast Identify and so forth you can split your xp 90% Fighter / 10% Mage.

Strangely enough, not only have I never heard of or imagined the possibility of altering your XP division, but I would use this as a strong argument in favor of 3E-style multi-classing. In 3E, you actually do have the option of taking one wizard level for every nine levels in fighter, where AD&D forced you to split it evenly (unless your DM said otherwise, I guess).

Back on the topic of this thread, the ability to use and implement house rules - and have them be accepted by the players - is probably the most important goal of 5E design. I'm honestly not sure how well it will hold up under the post-3E player mindset. If the tone of these forums is any indication, significant house rules will always be opposed by a vocal portion of the playerbase.

 

[Lanefan]

In this case, the PHB actually spelled out the exact procedure to use, down to how you were supposed to round it. My example was actually the same one they used in the book, and you would roll d6/3 and d4/3 and d10/3 at the appropriate points.

Ah. I'm coming from a 1e perspective, where we bolted on what amounted to 2e multiclassing rules without realizing it (and long before 2e came out).

Strangely enough, not only have I never heard of or imagined the possibility of altering your XP division, but I would use this as a strong argument in favor of 3E-style multi-classing. In 3E, you actually do have the option of taking one wizard level for every nine levels in fighter, where AD&D forced you to split it evenly (unless your DM said otherwise, I guess).

Two things here.

First, a 90-10 xp split doesn't give a 9-1 level split in any edition, as the xp required for each level j-curves upward. I think in the specific case of a 90-10 F-MU (which one of my players ran, a long time ago) the level split I remember was 8-3 or 8-4 by the time her career ended.

And second, to do anything like this in the 3e system just doesn't work; again because of j-curving xp per level. If you go 9 levels of Fighter and then drop in one level of Wizard that one level is going to cost you way more xp than if you had done it after just one level of Fighter or used the optional 0-0 rules. I know this from experience because with the first 3e character I ever played I was trying to do exactly this - a 90-10 F-MU based mechanically on the same character I referenced above - and it didn't work well at all, as I learned the hard way over several years of play.

Back on the topic of this thread, the ability to use and implement house rules - and have them be accepted by the players - is probably the most important goal of 5E design. I'm honestly not sure how well it will hold up under the post-3E player mindset. If the tone of these forums is any indication, significant house rules will always be opposed by a vocal portion of the playerbase.

Yeah, DM empowerment vs. player entitlement.

Then again, I'm not sure how representative these forums are of the greater gaming community. We're mostly the hard-core nutballers.

Lanefan