Multi- and Dual-Class Restrictions
FinneousPJ
Member Posts: 6,455
Hello all,
What is the point of multi- and dual-class restrictions? They seem rather arbitrary to me, and limit my enjoyment somewhat. Why not allow all combinations like later editions, I'd love to play Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer dual classes. A Fighter->Bard dual for example might make the class suck a bit less in this edition. The worst thing is apparently they cannot be modded or SK'd.
Please share your thoughts.
Respectfully,
FinneousPJ
What is the point of multi- and dual-class restrictions? They seem rather arbitrary to me, and limit my enjoyment somewhat. Why not allow all combinations like later editions, I'd love to play Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer dual classes. A Fighter->Bard dual for example might make the class suck a bit less in this edition. The worst thing is apparently they cannot be modded or SK'd.
Please share your thoughts.
Respectfully,
FinneousPJ
0
Comments
I'd also mention that the perception of levels has changed a lot with time, it used to be considered that 9th level or so was about as high as anyone could get. And really, in over 30 years of playing AD&D I only ever had three primary characters go any higher (all three characters were married, and had spouses that also attained higher levels).
So in 1E there were not only the class restrictions you see, but levels were capped for Demi-humans at what would be considered quite low now. Like I played a half-elven fighter-cleric for many years who was limited to 6th level fighter and 5th level cleric! It actually took a long time before that was ever a problem; we just didn't gain, or expect to gain levels very quickly back then.
Well when the first big supplement, Unearthed Arcana was published, all those limits were raised a lot. 2E came along a little later and raised limits, and increased options even further. But it kept the basic structure;humans dual class, Demi-humans multi-class the same. The Bard class was completely restructured at this time (believe me, it was for the best, you'd laugh out loud if you saw the restrictions on 1E Bards. But I'll give you hint, all Bards were triple class characters, in the dual classing sense of the word...)
But you wouldn't believe how much 2E opened the floodgates for creative and different character design. The "Kit" concept was added, specialty clerics were added, and a slew of new races were added.
Funny thing is, many of the games I played in did away with many of the restrictions long before 3E. Some DMs got rid of level limits (or made them "softer"... Don't ask...) and got rid of class restrictions. I myself did away with dual classing and redesigned multi- classing in a way to be used for all characters.
So the restrictions are sort of a legacy feature. They aren't really needed for any reason, but at the time BG was published they were still a part of the core rules. Many of the classes that can't dual or multi are classes that are add ons and were never a part of the 2E system anyway (Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Monk were not 2E classes, at least not in the core rules). Paladins and Bards were just never allowed to dual class in 2E; I think they were considered too powerful and too special.
Again, I've played plenty of games using house rules where such things were allowed (I've even got a multi-class Paladin/Bard stuffed away in an old gaming folder somewhere). But BG just didn't. I played in so many games with so many different house rules I just consider BG to be another wacky DM...
You play D&D since the 70's?! wow
@FinneousPJ
I would also much love the ability to open up the multi- and dual-classing options in a modded game. Apparently a lot of it is hard-coded, however, and would be very difficult to change.
For example, I would loo-oove to play a dual- or multi-class DragonDisciple/Bard. Or a Paladin/Sorceror. Or an Archer/Mage. That would be tremendous fun.
I did play some sort of PnP with a childhood friend and his brother, which had some experience playing at highschool so he was a participating DM. However we didn't have any books or rules at his house and it abruptly ended when the brother came back from taking a shower and he got furious cause me and my friend's characters were suddenly dressed in dragonscale/diamond/mithril armor, wielding superweapons and possessing, lets call it "super-high-level abilities". We counter argued that the brother's necromancer's levitation and summon black dragon powers weren't exactly fair and balanced in the first place either.
Most of my gaming groups started in school (high school and college). And friends invite friends, and groups grow in quite eccentric ways.
As I've been transferred around for work a few times over the years it's gotten harder to game with the old crew, but I've always been able to find friends with similar interests. Believe it or not it usually starts at church; I tend to gravitate towards the comics and sci-fi crowd, and there's always gamers, or potential gamers there. My current group got going right after Fellowship of the Ring opened, my wife and I went with another couple, and I commented after the movie I'd like to run a game. We added a few other friends and I quickly had six players.
I've not tried to meet players through the Internet. For me, gaming is SUCH a social experience it's important to have some clue about chemistry and relationships before you dive right into gaming together. Just like that "other" thread I've been active in lately, discussions about values and principles are a key part of role playing. If you don't have some commonality with the people you are gaming with things can get very uncomfortable or very hostile very quickly (I have learned this the hard way!)
I first got into CRPGs in the 1980s when full time work, and shift work, meant it was a lot harder to get a group together than when we were in school together. I have loved many computer games over the years, but I always consider them a substitute for PNP. PNP seems like "the real thing" to me, CRPGs are a simulation.
And I guess that makes me one of the old farts around here!
@atcDave thanks for the history. I gather you would also like to see more openness added to this game mechanic.
@bigdogchris what's ARAC? lol
Do you guys figure making a poll (or an address) might encourage the devs to see into lifting these restrictions (at least for modders)?
Since humans have shorter lifespan than all other races (except half-orcs) I would assume that it would be more natural for them to multi-class. Dual-classing means that they must advance in one class and then abandon it and start a new one and then regain back the abilities of the first class after the second class surpass the first one. This normally takes a lot of years and a human doesn't have the "luxury" of a long lifespan to decide to go through this procedure. I think that multi-class is making much more sense for humans, due to their short lifespan; they can advance in both classes simultaneously and they don't have to wait till old age to regain the abilities of the first class.
On the other hand, elves, half-elves, dwarves, gnomes and halflings have a longer lifespan and I think it is more natural for them to choose to dual-class since they have the "luxury" of time to go through this slow procedure of dual-classing.
Why could'nt human multiclass
they are suppose to be the most versitile race
and why can Gnomes have cleric multiclass when they get a penatly to wisdom
I don't think a poll would change the game any; a lot of this stuff is pretty hard wired into the game. And I mostly do like 2E rules, too big a change could damage the feel of things that I like best.
Just for the record, I do dislike the newer rules sets and the way everything is so open, and the classes are so carefully balanced they loose all their flavor. I think some of the eccentricities in 2E are what make it fun (like character classes of very different power, balanced some by different experience tables, and randomly rolled scores that make for unique and interesting characters).
A couple of people asked about multi vs dual. I couldn't say the entire thought process, but I think many BG players make dual classing a much harder thing than they need to. I think it's largely the power gamer mentality, thinking you need to get your fighter to 13th level before dualing and all. It garuntees you'll spend most of the game just trying to get your character where you want them, and very little time just enjoying what you've got. The original intent definitely assumed much lower switch over points. Like maybe 5th or 6th level. One of my favorite things to do is take a fighter just to 3rd level, then dual. So if I'm dualing to Mage I'll have a fair number of hit points, three pips in bow and two in quarter staff, and it's all useable when the Mage hits 4th level! That way you'll even enjoy full benefit for most of BG. Especially when your Mage is still kind of low level and doesn't have so many spells, you can shoot arrows with deadly precision when you run out of spells. Later, in BG2, you won't need the bow as much, but you're great with it when you do need it!
Flexibility in character design is good to a point, but after you reach that point I believe flexibility can ruin a game. A dwarf Monk or gnome Paladin doesn't excite me in the least bit, so that level of flexibility ruins that game for me. I'd rather have restricted races and classes, and then have deeper development into that.
Druids in 2nd Edition where a very deep class, but also had a lot of restrictions tied to them. The end product is better for roleplaying than a generic 1-20 scale ARAC class for everyone.
Are you implying 3rd Ed. is ruined by the flexibility? I don't agree with you. I feel 3rd and 3.5 Ed. (well, NWN and NWN2 as I don't play DnD as such) are more fun than 2nd Ed. The main reason for this is the amount of customization possible by the system. I don't know about the newest rulesets.
Why shouldn't Gnomes be allowed to be Paladins? Are you offended by Dorn and Aerie in BG, BTW?
Anyway, didn't mean to turn this into that debate again.
I happen to like the 3rd Ed rules (NWN). We always played with house rules eliminating racial class and level limits back then anyways.
So I like the rulesets between back then and before 4th ed. 2nd ed kind of takes me back, the nostalgia of those first, heady years of D&D PnP as it reached it's apex of popularity. We were going to GenCons, were members of the RPGA, and were fanbois of Gary E. Gygax. Subscriptions to The Dragon Magazine were mandatory (I love Wormy), and we looked forward to each edition of the RPGA Newsletter. What a ride!
Of course, it came to an end, as all things do. We parted ways. I always managed to get together with other like-minded individuals, and we had gaming sessions as well. Up until around 2000. Then it was "suddenly" very difficult to find anyone where I live (Germany now) who wished to play in a PnP group.
Then NWN came out - it offered an interesting "twist" to Computer D&D - online play with a DM Client. After that...I emerged myself in it for many, many years - still going!
Limits on my time (RL calling!) pretty much guarantees that I don't have the luxury of playing like I used to, however.
So BG is back on my laptop.
I remember one game even playing around with multi/dual classing within categories, making a thief/bard an actual possibility. But the thing is, you end up paying a massive penalty in experience for a minor addition in abilities. I think the rule is unnecessary, the issue is practically self limiting.
I'll think I'll give your approach a try with a Fighter/Mage concept I'm developing.
And I didn't mean to slam on the more power oriented approach completely. I have also enjoyed doing such extreme builds on occasion too. I like trying different ways of doing things.
The other is the scores you need. Compared to a single class Mage, if you started as a fighter you now MUST have a 15 strength and 17 intelligence. Depending on your point total, that could impact other useful scores like dexterity, constitution or charisma. The Mage dual is bad that way, because ordinarily, who would put 15 points to strength for a Mage?!
But again, it's all those sorts of trade offs that it all fun to me.