OT: D&D and multi-classing.

[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 ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hmm...typically, barbarians have generations of lore in songs and stories. I don't see that in D&D.

One difference between Tolkien and D&D is that in Tolkiens world, magic is a natural result of certain places (the well that Frodo looked into), emotions (That guys sword telling him that it would gladly drink his blood), the will (like the making of the rings) or a natural extension of that persons being (Tom, Gandalph, Aragorns ability to heal with Kingsfoil).

In D&D, magic is something you study and twist to your own ends. Emotion plays no part. It's mechanistic.

In both cases, anybody can do magic or interact with it. But in Tolkien's world, it's, well not mechanical.

[ June 19, 2004, 04:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]