OT: D&D and multi-classing.

Multi-classing can be really powerful, where the abilities of two or more classes synergise, or where you can cherry-pick abilities from one class to match your main one. A half-orc Cleric with 1-3 levels of Barbarian can - especially with judicious application of Righteous Might, Divine Power and Bull Strength turn into a complete combaat monster while still having all his Cleric spells. Fighter/Thief Barbarian/Thief Ranger/Thief combos work very becasue the dex-based skills (e.g. Tumble) and thief abilities (e.g. sneak attack, flanking immunity) make for a more flexible, more powerful fighter. And of course every power-gamer would take a level of Ranger for Two Weapon Fighting 'til they fixed that in 3.5

Fighter/Wizard combos can work too, but not as dual-role Fighters who can be wizards; more like Fighters who boost themselves with a few spells (True Strike, Shield, Expeditious Retreat (not normally used for retreating as such...), flame arrow etc). But expecting a Fighter/Wizard to be both a good fighter and good wizard is sort of missing the point isn't it? If anyone could be both without much penalty, why would anyone be a single class character?

You can also have fun tinkering with strange character designs who take levels in 4 or more classes to build an individual character concept or style. It's not normally a power-gaming option, but it amuses some players...

[geoschmo]

You can't be a jack-of-all trades unless you are willing to be a master of none.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
In 3rd edition D&D, multi-classing is a better option than it was in 2nd edition and before.

From a pure power-game perspective, no, multiclassing was stronger in 2nd. You could have a 5th/5th fighter/MU while everyone else was at 6th level in a single class. The current systems favors taking maybe one or two levels in one class (taking advantage of front loaded abilities), and then sticking with a main class.

Narf, talk to your DM. If you want to play a Dwarf Druid/Fighter, maybe he'll let you without the xp penalty in favor of going on some sort of quest or something... who knows. Good DMs will often let you get away with bending the rules if it doesn't break the balance.

[gregebowman]

When I was playing AD&D, I never played multi-class characters. It seemed to take forever to advance, while your single class characters would go up a level at the drop of a hat. But since I never really played with 2nd or 3rd editions, I can't say if I would play them now. I think playing a single class character with a lot of skills would probably be better anyway. But I know people like to play them. I'm just not one of them.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by spoon:
Narf, talk to your DM. If you want to play a Dwarf Druid/Fighter, maybe he'll let you without the xp penalty in favor of going on some sort of quest or something... who knows. Good DMs will often let you get away with bending the rules if it doesn't break the balance. [/QB]

Well, I would, but I don't even have a group to play with.

But I got a plan: Buy a starting adventure and start a group.

Anyone know any good starting adventures?

[Alneyan]

"Find players and a potential DM available at roughly the same time" remains one of the best starting adventures out there. If you happen to know how to solve this one, please let me know.

[General Woundwort]

Boy, does this conversation take me to Way Back When. Haven't played such games since college. But the discussion caught my attention because it reminded me of an article I read awhile back by a guy named Martinez, on the way (A)D&D and modern mass-market fantasy stereotypes the themes and backgrounds in Tolkien's works. It's a bit on the philosophical side, and would probably interest only hard-core gamers and/or Tolkien geeks (I at least qualify in the latter), but it does have interesting points...

Trampling the Legacy, Remaking the Myth


EDIT - Quote from article most pertinent to this thread...

The presumption of Class and Profession permeated the popular imagination and took readers away from the universal optimism which Tolkien advanced.

In Tolkien's world, a well-to-do Hobbit can be dragooned into masquerading as a common burglar (not a pocket-picking thief, although he tried a little of that to poor effect). Tolkien allows a common gardener (essentially an NPC henchman in gaming terms, a non-player character who tags along with the player character) to rise to become Master of Bag End, founder of a prominent Shire family, and Mayor of the Shire (perhaps with the longest ever tenure in that office). Sam wasn't just a gardener. He was an individual with feelings and priorities and desires. He just managed to focus so well on what he was doing that people are often surprised to learn Sam had a girlfriend.

Middle-earth allows kings to be bards, warriors, healers, scholars, and smiths. Barbarians transcend cultural boundaries and become civilized peoples. Ancient lore is not treated as something that only a special group of people can understand. Anyone may learn a little something of each race's special lore. Dungeons and Dragons removed these potentials, these aptitudes, from the imagination of fantasy readers and writers alike.

[ June 19, 2004, 03:26: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]