Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Chainsaw wrote:

rogatny wrote:I go for the most permissive reading of the rule that I can justify given the individual circumstances.

Even beyond just dual classing, anytime there's any ambiguity, I usually gravitate toward the player advantage... but once the dice are rolled, we live with the results, for better or worse. As you say, if it's turns out later that the ruling lends itself to an obvious and repeatable exploit, then we fix it. No biggie.

This seems fair. Hitting the Bar-Bar-Bar even required to get your Dual-Class on is hard enough...!

The thing with "The Character With Two Classes" is that it's basically the antithesis of the class/archetype spirit that D&D was initially built around. Realism was never a factor, it was the archetype taken to the extreme. The two class rules were the first taste of the much maligned, class bouncing free-for-all that was to come. Gary included the rules because there were always players looking for more 'well rounded' PCs, but he also added restrictions in an attempt to limit abuse.

That may be your opinion but I find it to be an excellent edition to an already excellent system for players who have genned up a great character and want to keep going if a campaign reboots, plus increase the survivability of incoming 1st level characters into that reboot. It seems to me that balancing the no-XP penalty if strictures of the new class are broken before reaching the old level cap, not gaining HP until the old class level cap, and so on are more than decent balancing factors that keep it in line with the character as archetype. Plus, it's fun.

ScottyG wrote:The thing with "The Character With Two Classes" is that it's basically the antithesis of the class/archetype spirit that D&D was initially built around.

I don't agree. The point of "The Character with Two Classes" is supposed to be changing a character's career, not adding another class's powers to your own. The problem is that the rules don't do enough to prevent abuse. When power gamers play in games where every ability of every character scores 15 or more, changing class is as easy as changing your socks, so it's just a way to get k3wl p0w3rz.

If there were a better limit than high ability scores, it might work better.

Stormcrow wrote:

ScottyG wrote:The thing with "The Character With Two Classes" is that it's basically the antithesis of the class/archetype spirit that D&D was initially built around.

I don't agree. The point of "The Character with Two Classes" is supposed to be changing a character's career, not adding another class's powers to your own. The problem is that the rules don't do enough to prevent abuse. When power gamers play in games where every ability of every character scores 15 or more, changing class is as easy as changing your socks, so it's just a way to get k3wl p0w3rz.

If there were a better limit than high ability scores, it might work better.

I think keeping you from advancing in the "new class" if you revert to the old one and having your old one effectively capped is pretty straightforward. There's not much point in saying "Hey, I can now cast sleep...unless I'm wearing all my armor...once per day. Also if I so much as look at plate mail and pick up a sword, I'm boned for this adventure."

If you single-classed as (say, fighter) until 8th level and now want to be a magic-user, you're gonna be a low-level M-U, just with a lot of hit points.

I don't think it's that abuse-prone myself, but that's just me.

Stormcrow wrote:If there were a better limit than high ability scores, it might work better.

I don't agree with you, but don't find your opinion especially unreasonable either. Let's just say I mildly disagree with you. That said, what about never using your old profession again without incurring some type of XP penalty? You already lose total XP when using the old profession prematurely. What about a 25% loss if you use it when "allowed" btb?

I never saw dual class as powergaming. Hey, you have the attributes your good to go. Most of the time people change their minds and don't want to go backwards. I have 3 fighters with 17 or 18 intel, never wanting to give up my armor and identity.

thedungeondelver wrote:I think keeping you from advancing in the "new class" if you revert to the old one and having your old one effectively capped is pretty straightforward.

Until you exceed your previous class's level; then you have two simultaneous classes. Only the equipment restrictions continue to apply.

The classic abuse is to play one level of fighter, then switch to magic-user. Once you reach level 2 as a magic-user, you can now use a sword and shield, and yet throw them down when you're ready to cast a spell. All it really took to get a magic-user with a sword was high ability scores and a single session played as a fighter. And if your DM hands out maximum hit points at first level (as many do), you've got extra hit points to boot.

A house rule a do use is not letting a character gain a new class until he is at least the minimum starting age for the class he is switching to. There are some in game reasons that could trump this, but that's the default.

Stormcrow wrote:The classic abuse is to play one level of fighter, then switch to magic-user. Once you reach level 2 as a magic-user, you can now use a sword and shield, and yet throw them down when you're ready to cast a spell. All it really took to get a magic-user with a sword was high ability scores and a single session played as a fighter. And if your DM hands out maximum hit points at first level (as many do), you've got extra hit points to boot.

Guys in my old high school group (an all human campaign) did this a couple of times, but I didn't really consider it an abuse. It was in the rules and they had the scores, so I agreed. I did require them to find someone to train them in the new class, which prompted new avenues of adventure and added some "realism." Ultimately, I can't remember dual-classing causing any huge headaches where I thought, "Man, this was a big mistake, what the hell was I thinking?!?."

Of course, maybe I'm just a munchkin GM, as I also allow all the UA specialization stuff in my current campaign.. but that didn't stop a 75% TPK in the first session and hasn't resulted in a Super Group (they still run away a lot).

In any case, dual-classing is an easy enough option to ignore if you have had a different experience or just disagree on a philosophical level.

thedungeondelver wrote:There's no reason you couldn't dual-class as a magic-user, then at a later level switch to paladin, assuming alignment and all other stats were acceptable right?

I mean there's obviously some spells that'd be no-nos, but I think otherwise you could do that.

It's BTB, but it's pretty foolish as you end up being a fighter that has d4 HD's (for some or all HD). It's also hard as hell to get so many 17's.

Paladin turned MU is a far more potent character, and far more likely as it requires lower ability scores (although still obcenely hard to roll on 4d6 drop 1)

Chainsaw wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:The classic abuse is to play one level of fighter, then switch to magic-user. Once you reach level 2 as a magic-user, you can now use a sword and shield, and yet throw them down when you're ready to cast a spell. All it really took to get a magic-user with a sword was high ability scores and a single session played as a fighter. And if your DM hands out maximum hit points at first level (as many do), you've got extra hit points to boot.

Guys in my old high school group (an all human campaign) did this a couple of times, but I didn't really consider it an abuse. It was in the rules and they had the scores, so I agreed. I did require them to find someone to train them in the new class, which prompted new avenues of adventure and added some "realism." Ultimately, I can't remember dual-classing causing any huge headaches where I thought, "Man, this was a big mistake, what the hell was I thinking?!?."

Of course, maybe I'm just a munchkin GM, as I also allow all the UA specialization stuff in my current campaign.. but that didn't stop a 75% TPK in the first session and hasn't resulted in a Super Group (they still run away a lot).

In any case, dual-classing is an easy enough option to ignore if you have had a different experience or just disagree on a philosophical level.

I agree with StormCrow on this one. Its an abuse of the rules, as its supposed to be something that occurs over time in the course of adventuring and playing (not something that occured before play, which is what happened when the player went from 0 lvl to 1st. As DM you can put your foot down easy enough (House Rules...gotta love them).

At a minimum, I force my players to go from 1st to 2nd (but I prefer 3rd, because thats the level stuff starts to kick in (fighter goes up a table, MUs get their first 2nd leve spell and an extra MM). 3rd is when a player starts thinking "do I really want to switch"? Another good guide is the Bard PC description (its painful to make those changes, and difficult for the group as you start in the basement each time).