D&D 5E Multiclassing--Which and Why?

[pemerton]

Multi-classing

<snip>

if a class was banned from using certain items then it didn't matter that the other was permitted them, so a F/MU usually didn't wear armour.

I believe 2nd ed AD&D introduced this rule. In Gygaxian AD&D it applied to thieves - so a multi-classed thief had to wear only leather armour (or the other permitted armour types that UA opened up for thieves) - but not magic-users or cleric - so a F/MU could cast in armour, and a C/F could use edged weapons - with the exception of gnomes, who for some reason as fighter/illusionists were limited to leather armour only.

Dual classing was available only to human characters.

You needed at least 15 in your old prime requisite(s) and 17 in your knew one(s) to dual-class. This was the main reason why I never saw it in play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

i did have a few dual-class PCs...but then again, i played AD&D and 2Ed from 1977 until the dawn of 3Ed.

 

[Obryn]

You needed at least 15 in your old prime requisite(s) and 17 in your knew one(s) to dual-class. This was the main reason why I never saw it in play.

Yep. Especially with AD&D's default character generation method of 4d6 pick 3, arrange to taste, that 17+ would almost certainly be in your main class's prime requisite, unless you planned to dual-class in advance. (Or got some really lucky rolls.)

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yep. Especially with AD&D's default character generation method of 4d6 pick 3, arrange to taste, that 17+ would almost certainly be in your main class's prime requisite, unless you planned to dual-class in advance. (Or got some really lucky rolls.)

-O

To dual class you almost always planned to dual class in advance IME. The one level in fighter for your first 2 hit dice being d10s and for weapon specialisation was good value for either a thief or a mage. And thief into mage was also pretty effective. For that matter, given how thieves fell behind, a 1250XP cost meant that thief into just about anything was a useful idea.