OT: D&D and multi-classing.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum. Being able to multi-class all classes without penalty would be better, but I realize would take to much work.

What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

I seem to be ranting.

[Taz-in-Space]

Ouch! Advancement by levels where experiance is the same for all levels. That sure would make multi-class characters weaker to play.
When I played AD&D there was a increasing requirement to advance to next level. That a least allowed multiclass some usefulness.

I remember playing a Fighter/Thief and being useful to the group as a Thief that was also handy in a fight. (I remember I used to take the trailing position in the formation to guard against attacks from the rear.)

With the rules as you stated, I would not have been as effective.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

Because it is called role-playing.

What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum.

So be a human or a half-elf.

What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

So be a human or a half-elf...

[Fyron]

Ouch! Advancement by levels where experiance is the same for all levels. That sure would make multi-class characters weaker to play. [Frown]
When I played AD&D there was a increasing requirement to advance to next level. That a least allowed multiclass some usefulness.

Actually... higher levels do require more experience to advance. It is just that all classes require the same experience _at each particular level_ to advance. No more thieves taking 1300 to advance, wizards 2500. Also, they balanced out the level advancements so that any class should gain roughly equivalent amounts of power as any other class for a particular level advancement.

Fighter/thief combinations are just as effective as they used to be, possibly even more so...

In 3rd edition D&D, multi-classing is a better option than it was in 2nd edition and before.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

Because it is called role-playing.

---

And I may want to role-play a dwarven cleric/druid without being penalized.

quote:

---

What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum.

So be a human or a half-elf.

---

Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes. Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

quote:

---

What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

So be a human or a half-elf...

---

[/quote]Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes. Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

[ June 18, 2004, 05:26: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Jack Simth]

If you want to seriously cross the line with classes, go with G.U.R.P.S., as it has no classes at all. No levels or experience, either - it runs a point system; you purchase skills, abilities, and stats with points; a certain number are given to a starting character (dependant on the world, campaign, and GM; usually about 100 points) to initially build the character; after that, they are awarded based on the adventures. You would need to have some explanation (background) for the character - but the (theoretically, anyway) for what skills, abilities, and spells you choose is based on the character concept (and limits of the campaign world, as set by the Game Master). If you want a fighter-style character with some lockpicking abilities, you can - just hold out some points from the fighter design to add the lockpicking skill, and note that your fighter had a misspent youth (where (s)he picked up the skill, of course). Or perhaps the character dabbled as an escape artist. As long as it fits the character concept, fits the campaign world, and won't unbalance the campaign, it's fine.

[Fyron]

And I may want to role-play a dwarven cleric/druid without being penalized.

Then keep the levels of each class within 4 levels of each other, no penalty at all.

Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes.

The goal is to create an interesting character, not to tweak out the most powerful character you possibly can... being more diverse and flexible can definitely be a plus. This is why they have classes such as ranger and bard...

Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

Because there are rules... I don't want to be penalized in spell-casting from wearing heavy armor, but it still happens... And again, you don't have to be penalized. Just keep the levels within 4 difference.