Multi-classing - Old vs. New...

[Madrigal Five]

Yeah, I remember that. All dwarves were fighters, all elves were fighter/mages... I think all halflings were fighters, too. Talk about racial stereotyping!

Simple rules, but a good introduction to AD&D.

[Nightowl2]

Basic D&D was a good introduction for the newbie just because it was simple. But as you pointed out, it also wasn't very flexible. Still, for the new player, it was better than the complexities of AD&D.

Even that tended towards stereotyping. In 1st ed, a Dwarf could be only a fighter, thief, or fighter/thief. Not even a cleric! And let's not think of the stringent level limitations (okay, we will...a Dwarf could make it to all of level 8 as fighter, but only if his strength was 18/xx).

The one unlimited class for every race (except Half-Orc, poor thing) was thief.

Things eased up a bit in 2nd ed, but there were still many limits on non-human races. They had to keep some in, just to give players incentive to be human

"Favored class" is the last echo of those older rules.

Nightowl2

[Zoltan]

I'm a role-player so 2rd Ed was much better. 3rd Ed is definetly absurd! Half-Orc Paladins, Axe & Sword using clerics, Fighter/Paladin/Ranger multiclass combo they are all REALLY absurd. In 3rd ed, you multi class because it gives you more advantage. So you think about the best combo with a power player perspective. You got a sorceror with 20 CHA, well multi class him with paladin and gain +5 to all saves. But what's the reason that he multiclasses to paladin? It sounds much better the 2nd ED way. One more thing, you can be a level 8 fighter or level 7 fighter / 7 cleric in 2nd Ed. The difference is 1 level because it costs double xp each level you gain ('til level 15 or something) but in 3rd edition you can be a level 8 fighter or a level 4 fighter and level 4 cleric. 2nd Ed was much better. But I enjoy 3rd edition for its new features. (feats etc)

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Zoltan: I'm a role-player so 2rd Ed was much better. 3rd Ed is definetly absurd! Half-Orc Paladins, Axe & Sword using clerics, Fighter/Paladin/Ranger multiclass combo they are all REALLY absurd. In 3rd ed, you multi class because it gives you more advantage. So you think about the best combo with a power player perspective. You got a sorceror with 20 CHA, well multi class him with paladin and gain +5 to all saves. But what's the reason that he multiclasses to paladin? It sounds much better the 2nd ED way. One more thing, you can be a level 8 fighter or level 7 fighter / 7 cleric in 2nd Ed. The difference is 1 level because it costs double xp each level you gain ('til level 15 or something) but in 3rd edition you can be a level 8 fighter or a level 4 fighter and level 4 cleric. 2nd Ed was much better. But I enjoy 3rd edition for its new features. (feats etc)

How is a cleric using a sword not reallistic? How is an Half-Orc paladin not reallistic?

Maybe the priest's god is a god of war. Not all religions are against making blood flow. Why can't an half-orc be a paragon of virtue, or an elf for that matter?

Why do you have to keep leveling in a class you are not using anymore. If I am a basketball player, and learn how to program computer, I sure won't become a better basketball player by sitting all day in front of a computer. What if I don't even want to keep training as a basketball player?

It was 2nd edition that restricted roleplaying, not the 3rd one. Now the only limit is your imagination.

[Yggdrasil]

I think what Zoltan is saying is that 3rd ed multiclassing is less structured than 2nd ed. I would tend to agree, but the onus is on the player not to 'abuse' the system; as always, some people prefer to powergame, while others are more interested in the rp aspect. The point about a sorcerer taking a level of paladin just for the saving throw bonus is well-taken.

The removal of race/class restrictions was a big plus. Make way for the half-orc bards and drow paladins!

[Luvian]

You have to remember that the D&D rules are made first for the pen and paper game, and no sane DM would let you abuse the game like that.

[MasterPooBaa]

3rd edition rules are nice, but some things still annoy me and i miss certain things from the AD&D rules.

The exp reduction makes it next to impossible to make decent high powered triple class characters, they seem to run out of leveling puff at between 4/4/4 and 5/5/5. so in reality you are limited to dual class characters if you want your guys to have any power.

The broad range of choices is nice though, no more fighre/mage/thief or fighter/mage/cleric.
can have barbarian/cleric/sorceror or ranger/cleric/mage or even thief/druid/cleric [img]smile.gif[/img]

Paladins are slightly annoying though, that except for certain circumstances you cant level im the paladin once you have chosen another class. Boo Hiss.

Finally im happy about the weapon restrictions being lifted... at last clerics can use swords and whatnot. I allways felt it was dumb that paladins of any deity could use swords, yet clerics could not.

[MasterPooBaa]

3rd edition rules are nice, but some things still annoy me and i miss certain things from the AD&D rules.

The exp reduction makes it next to impossible to make decent high powered triple class characters, they seem to run out of leveling puff at between 4/4/4 and 5/5/5. so in reality you are limited to dual class characters if you want your guys to have any power.

The broad range of choices is nice though, no more fighre/mage/thief or fighter/mage/cleric.
can have barbarian/cleric/sorceror or ranger/cleric/mage or even thief/druid/cleric [img]smile.gif[/img]

Paladins are slightly annoying though, that except for certain circumstances you cant level im the paladin once you have chosen another class. Boo Hiss.

Finally im happy about the weapon restrictions being lifted... at last clerics can use swords and whatnot. I allways felt it was dumb that paladins of any deity could use swords, yet clerics could not.

[Nightowl2]

Yeah, one thing that irked me in the old rules was the "clerics use blunt weapons only". Like smashing in someone's head with a mace wasn't going to let the blood flow? That never made sense. I was glad to see that one go.

As for rules generally, no good DM would let players get away with abusing the rules. Computer games - where you need every advantage you can get - are one thing. The real RPG is something quite different.

Nightowl2

[Luvian]

The xp reduction thing is also just a problem in the computer game. In pen and paper, the Dm would have you face ennemies that would be a challenge to you. I think the programmers should not have added it to the video game.