The logic behind dual class

Remove all ads!

Going to agree with Felinoid here. Let's take a Paladin, for example. His class is not just a set of skills, it indicates his lifestyle, his ideals (although not in all cases), his whatever. He is a paladin by heart, not by the skills that belong to paladin.

And now, this Paladin decides that magic would be very beneficial for his adventurous lifestyle, more so than continuing his martial and spiritual training at the time. Thus, he sets his paladin side aside (not breaking his ideals, but still not being a real palading at the time - he can, usually, still serve whatever cause he served before) and starts learning magic.
Now, if he were to resume his study as a paladin, it would seriously hamper his new learning of magic, quite simply because he doesn't have time to do both properly.

 

How about this illogical thought then.

A good warrior decides to learn magic, then when out wandering gets set upon by a dozen Gibberlings and dies, being as he is now unable to use his sword/axe .
Absolute nonsense.
Now if he didn't gain maximum XP it would be understandable, but to not be able to fight them off at the cost of your life is not.

 

...Reading is fundamental. Some quick excerpts:

Also, a good DM would not beset a 1st level wizard with a horde of gibberlings (Tutu spawns notwithstanding). Killing your players because they decide to use a game mechanic is rather petty.

 

So what will a good DM do, with a party of two 10th level warriors and one 10th level Cleric who just decided to dual over to a Wizard?

 

Fel, I wasn't aware of that pnp distiniction. Reading is fundamental! The ability to use old skills, albeit with a penalty, makes dual classing a little bit more realistic, but not much. There is still the problem of completely reacquiring your old skill set (or mindset if you like that better). Just the passage of time alone would alter your old class, much less the process of fusing old and new ideologies, knowledge, and skills. If anything the result of a dual class should be more like a multi-class, just slightly less restrictive- an actual fusion of ideologies.

By the way, I enjoyed creating BGII characters way more than NWN characters, so I'm not some diehard 3e apologist. I just think 3e is a more logical system.

 

Well I atleast would not let them do that kind of dual classing, it is equally petty of players to practically destroy the entire game by making that sort of a move. I'm pretty picky with how I let players dual class or multi class in general, there needs to be a proper roleplaying reason for it either from the character's background (in which case it's anticipated) or from developments within the campaign (in which case it's planted there by the DM).

As for the topic itself I agree that dual-classing makes very little roleplaying sense but even more I dislike the sort of multi-class combo abominations that 3rd edition makes possible.

 

Give some examples of some unrealistic 3e abominations. Do you mean with prestige classes? Or like a warrior doing a little meditating and taking a few monk levels?

It does seem stupid to be able to dabble in classes that are more of a lifestyle, such as a paladin, monk, or ranger. I like the idea of only be able to multi-class by adding levels of the more generic classes, like fighter and rougue.

 

Rogue is a lifestyle!

In NWN there is a limit to the number of classes that a character can have whereas there is no such limit in IWD2.

In PnP 10 level characters are not easy to get unless the DM is giving away XP like candy. Dual classing at level 10 in PnP is a weird idea...

 

Maybe I would have a different take on this if I had more pnp experience

[ August 01, 2007, 03:35: Message edited by: ion ]

 

So, when is dualclassing allowed then?

 

You could try and "dabble" in paladin, but as soon as you stopped taking levels of pally, you could never go back to take more levels of it. The same goes for monk I think and even some prestige classes.

Personally I like 3e multiclassing. It gives you a lot more opportunities to customize your character. ie: Fighter/Wizard --->>> Spellsword.

 

omni: You can never go back to your original class when dual classing.

Your whole post describes 3e multi classing, not 2e dual classing.

 

2e has its benefits and disadvantages and so does 3 and 3.5e; however, 2e does do a better job of restricting levels and classes than the newer rules.

The classes below are lifestyles (way of life) and any divergence from this lifestyle should strip the character of the class's special abilities.

Sorcerer - This class is using one's inner ability to draw magical energy. This is who you are and therefore you shouldn't be able to explore other options.
Monk - This is your lifestyle and without following the strict codes you would not be this.
Paladin - See Monk
Ranger - See Monk
Bard - See Monk
Druid - See Monk

Yes, 2e did allow some dual classing of some of the classes listed above, but limited the number of classes available based on the first class selected. This limit is also based on the values and believes of the second class. See example below.

i.e. A ranger in 2e that dual class would dual class into a Cleric that studied nature.

A Druid could dual class into a fighter, but the fighter is treated almost like a ranger due to the Druid's life style.

The others you could not dual.

Of course with 2e supplemental books there are a bunch of other classes available and most of them did not allow dual classing due to the class’s lifestyle, and those that did were restricted due to how the second class would affect first class lifestyle.

To top this off, classes that were lifestyle require specific stats and in P&P it is next to impossible to become these classes; therefore when you achieved a roll to become one of the life style classes you usually selected that class.

If you wanted to dual class you first need to have a 15 in your primary skill in your first class and a 17 in the second class; this typically did not happen for most players due to how hard it is to be some of the classes as it is.

As for 3 and 3.5e I don't know the P&P rule book, so I don't know if classes have stat perquisites. If they don't than this makes the newer system very illogical because not everyone can be a Paladin, Ranger, etc... It takes a certain breed.

As for dual and multi-classing the basic four classes I am still in agreement with 2e.

Multicasting you have to earn twice as many experiences to go up a level in one class since you are splitting the learning process; also only non-humans can multi-class and were restricted in levels in specific classes. These limits were increased when the player had stats specific levels.

Dual classing is only capable by human and required 15 in the primary and 17 for the new class primary. Dual classing wasn't easy and you had to meet these requirements before you could change class. From there you could use your old skills but at a cost, as Fel pointed out.

3e and 3.5e rules seem to allow easy flow between classes and really are more illogical than the 2e system.

I do like how the d20 rules work; I don't like how they changed classes and leveling in 3 and 3.5e.

Speaking of leveling in 2e each class had to reach a specific set of xp before leveling up; from what I can see 3e and 3.5e requires you to reach xp based on your level.

To me 3 and 3.5e are designed for power gaming and 2e was designed around game balance. 2e may have more rules that are harder to learn but they are there for a reason, balance. That is something I believe Gary realized long ago when designing AD&D.

Wizard of the Coast turned Dungeon and Dragon in a power table top game; which is great when making a game like NWN or NWN 2, but not for gamers who like balance.

[ August 30, 2007, 19:49: Message edited by: Munchkin Blender ]

 

I think 3e is pretty balanced.

 

I really don't understand this sentiment at all. The reason 2nd edition is so goofy is because it's so illogical. Though some don't like the change, 3rd and 3.5 edition rules are far more balanced and realistic.

 

I agree on the point of way of lifestyle, except for... sorcerer. Like you pointed out, sorcerer is what you are born with. This means that it is not a choice you make. It is more like an innate ability, and as such for me should be able to be multiclassed. It is logical that they don't advance as fast when they don't focus exclusively on their sorc abilities. You could compare it to the abilities charname gets because of his child of bhaal status.

I think that is what bothers me most with sorcerers: they are the only class that isn't learned. Their spells and abilities come to the character naturally, there is no studying. They do have to get practice, but that's what xp is there for...

BTW, fighter/druid is still alot more druid than ranger. They are still limited to druid weapons and in pnp (unlike bg) they can't use the metal armors without losing their druid abilities (for 24 hours).

 

If you look at the original druid class description, you'll notice that it never actually says that a Druid is limited to "druidic" weaponry by his ethos. Like a wizard, bard, or thief, those weapons just happen to be the ones he's trained with. BG got it backwards. Fighter/Druids should be able to use any weapon, but not any armor.

 

What I would like to see in 4e rules, is a kind of hybrid of the 2e and 3e rules.

I agree that there should be some restrictions on multi\dual classing. (Paladin should not be able to, Ranger, Monk, Bard, Druid should be limited.) I like that aspect of 2e rules.

For the actual mechanics of how multi\dual classing works, I prefer 3e rules. As has been mentioned already, in 2e human have to stop advancing their first class when they dual, and can never go back. That's not realistic. I should be able to go back, but I should be limited in what class combinations I can make.

Likewise, multi-classing in 2e is not realistic either. You can have a Fighter\Mage who only fights melee for a while and then automatically levels up his mage class. (Of course 3e rules are broken here too, but you have to choose to level the mage side...and in PnP a DM might restrict this.)

Anyway, I don't think a perfect system is going to be found. But it's also not something that keeps me awake at night...

 

I do like 3e rule of allowing all races to be any class; I agree with this rule since any demi-human could be raised by a group of humans, etc...

I would prefer 3e more if there was ability score requirements before a character can multi-class, each class requires a unique number of experience to go up to the next level, you can have 2 classes with one prestige class and you cannot multi from a fighter to ranger, etc... When multi-classing you have to move from a warrior group to wizard, etc...

One more thing specific classes would be restricted or limited to the classes they could select for multi-classing or suffer some serious xp penalty.

The modification above would make me want to play 3e or 4e.

I do like balance and from a DM's prosecptive 3e was geared toward munchkin players.