Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

I didn't say that you can't have deep roleplaying in D&D, I'm saying that the setting and published material is more encouraging of hack'n'slash. After all, a beginning DM is less likely to modify the rules.

It seems more likely that, when starting RP'ing with D&D, that one will start with hack'n'slash and begin roleplaying from there than start roleplaying and add action elements.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

I haven't really looked at the newer 3rd edition published adventures all that much, but there were a number of non-hack'n'slash adventures out there back when I was actually playing D&D, in the 2nd edition era.

Beginners have to start off by learning the rules before they can really get to the heart of roleplaying.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You're right. But the point is, if you're interested in storytelling, why would you bother learning what is an extremely complex set of fantasy skirmish battle rules? It's a waste of time.

If roleplaying and storytelling are your priority, you've got to be better off with a cleaner simpler system. Or not bother with one at all.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

Correction: What I have seen and heard of the published material.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

I and a group of friends are currently playing 3.5, but we started out with 3.0. Our group is more into Hack 'n Slash, but we've had our fair share of in depth role playing. Once we had to navigate through a village (The DM designed this play himself to couter all the Hack 'n Slash we were used to) without even killing a mouse (No pun intended Narf). This was actually one of the better asignments we've had.
As to Hack 'n Slash, I enjoy that very much after all, what are you going to do when a huge dragon is in from of you?! Eliminate it!!! That's the whole purpose of the dragon in the quest, it has to DIE!! And what does Aragorn have to do when he's confronted by a cavetroll? Yes he has to kill it. He wouldn't survived when he had kindly asked the troll to back off and to leave. The troll either kills him of he kills the troll. No way around it.
Another group I was playing with focussed entirely on the personal issues of the characters, the real in depth role playing. Now that was boring, in my time with that group we encountered no more that 5 creatures. And all they could talk about was how great the group was busy with the enrafeling of the mystery that took place in the group. All they did was talking and moving from one stup[id conversation to another. Really it wasn't my cup of tea. One more fun thing of killing creatures is the treasure. That has been the biggest motive for players since the first D&D books came out. Even in movies the treasure is mostly the motive for the characters to set out on their grand quest. The badguys most frequently guard these treasures fiercely with the most awfull beasts they could find. Hence the love for killing foul creatures by the hundreds. All for the treasure and the glory that goes with it.

Oh and multiclassing is cool. Like Fyron pouinted out, you should only do it when you reach level 10 (minimum). Most of the time the requirements don't allow for a multiclassing to take place before level 10. I'm a wizard level 9, I plan to multiclass when I reach level 13. I would like to be a Planeshifter (well that's my choice for now because there will be a book out soon about plane related classes). I could multiclass right now (I have met all the requirements), but then I would miss a great deal of spells. The Planeshifter actually continues to give levels for my wizard. So I plannen that when I reach level 10 Planeshifter I would be a level 20 wizard. Above that you're in the epic levels. I haven't really taken a look at those levels.
Botomline is Fyron was right about multiclassing. You shouldn't do it before you reach at least level 10 and it has advantages when you reach the higher levels.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

I think there are several ways to benefit from multi-classing before level ten (though your example of progressing on to a Prestige class is often a good option if you want something different). As I said previously, you can make a powerful warrior out of a Cleric by starting him with a single level of Barbarian. Or make for a very versatile dex-based fighter by starting with three levels of Thief.

Spell-casters often lose out the most by multi-classing, if they see spellcasting as their primary function. But if their "other" class is their main focus, then a few spells can oftern be a real boost.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

One of the best Groups I had was when we went "outside the box", and started playing other games besides AD&D (this was back in the 80's). One of other games I fell in love with, and wish I could still play, was GURPS from Steve Jackson Games. It's a skill based system, where you have points and then can buy whatever skills you need. What makes this game system so versatile is that they make supplemental books for just about anything. Fantasy, sci-fi, modern weapons and vehicles, futuristic stuff. I really want to buy their WWII book that came out a couple of years ago. Anyway, some of my best sessions came when we played a fantasy game using this system. There's no multiclass per se; you can be a sword-fighting mage if you want to be. You just have to have enough skill points to buy your skills. I highly recommend it as an alternative to D&D.

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Not true. There are plenty of scenarios where the Dragon sends you on a quest. They are afterall very intelligent beings, not just big brutes like cave trolls...

Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
 

Don't mind me, just cross-linking: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=011924