The Gaming Den

Krusk wrote:As this was your first post/thread here ever what were your expectations or hopes that this treaty on how great 2e was would become?

This is just words getting put into my mouth. I did not claim that 2e was superior, but I did say that the multi and dualclassing is better than any of the following editions based on experimentation. It's the rabid fans of the third that wanted to to shove their irrational hatred of the second edition based on very vague knowledge. We don't need to go through the same song and dance as with FrankTrollman and that other guy again.

Tomawis wrote: but I did say that the multi and dualclassing is better than any of the following editions based on experimentation.

How exactly did you do this experiment, because I can't see how 2ed multi/dual class is better than 3rd's which is pretty bad?

schpeelah wrote:I believe what OgreBattle is thinking of is subclassing. I also believe we had a pretty exhaustive discussion of that already.

Hrm. It takes a pretty generous reading to sound like mandatory subclassing, but that's a better interpretation than anything I could fathom.

4e style classing (where done with 1 class at X levels and then must begin a class at higher level) is a totally fine multiclassing method.

My preference for 3e is simply making single classes that do what you want to do (I guess "Classplosion"), but if I were tasked with writing a successor to 3e that was to be played by the masses, then creating tiered classes would be the way I'd go. You get sufficient variety by mixing and matching different paths, and if you make certain that the RNG is not tossed overboard with any particular combination then you're good to go.

Tomawis, this is how the thread went:

YOU: "Let's talk about multiclassing. I like 2e multiclassing because it is good."
EVERYONE: "2e multiclassing makes unbalanced characters and has huge now-for-later power trades. It's terrible."
YOU: "lol butthurt fanboys u never reed"

Do you understand the argument? You are claiming that the opposition is irrational and crazy and doesn't understand 2e multiclassing, and yet the opposition has shown you repeatedly why 2e multiclassing is bad and you haven't addressed any of their arguments without plugging your ears and screaming.

Now you need to put up or shut up: If you want a serious discussion on multiclassing, you either need to explain why the bad things about 2e multiclassing aren't bad, or you need to accept that you are wrong and move on.

Leress wrote: How exactly did you do this experiment, because I can't see how 2ed multi/dual class is better than 3rd's which is pretty bad?

By playing the game. In higher levels it mostly consist of Baldur's Gate, not tabletop. It's not entirely perfect, but it matches up quite well.

Apart from temporarily disabling class abilities, I can't really see what the forum's beef with the AD&D's multi- and dual classing is. It would help me to elaborate if I knew what exactly elaboration is needed on. Something worth adding is that AD&D isn't intended to be fair, like third edition is. Instead it has what I call controlled imbalance, which emphasises that players need to work together to have a full set of abilities. I see what the problem with that is, but it's a fundamental difference between the editions and goes much beyond how the games handle characters with several classes.

OK, we can do this again:

• Multi-classing in 2e has you spend XP to level up both classes, so if you have 2 classes you get half the XP to split about those classes. This means you're getting level-appropriate abilities 2-4 levels after you should be getting them, so designing encounters around you is a pain in the ass.
• Dual-classing is even worse, because you need to sacrifice your ability to functionally act as a given class in order to accumulate an appropriate number of levels, and after that you are twice a normal character and 0 or 1 levels behind. It's an enormous power-now for power-later trade, and it's not good design in any way.

Tomawis wrote:

Leress wrote: How exactly did you do this experiment, because I can't see how 2ed multi/dual class is better than 3rd's which is pretty bad?

By playing the game. In higher levels it mostly consist of Baldur's Gate, not tabletop. It's not entirely perfect, but it matches up quite well.

Are you sure you know what an experiment is?

Could you explain what experiment(s) you performed by playing Baldur's Gate?

Okay. I will stay out.

Butthurt wrote:

Okay. I will stay out.

It's okay, man. We're all still cool with you.

...You Lost Me wrote:OK, we can do this again:

• Multi-classing in 2e has you spend XP to level up both classes, so if you have 2 classes you get half the XP to split about those classes. This means you're getting level-appropriate abilities 2-4 levels after you should be getting them, so designing encounters around you is a pain in the ass.
• Dual-classing is even worse, because you need to sacrifice your ability to functionally act as a given class in order to accumulate an appropriate number of levels, and after that you are twice a normal character and 0 or 1 levels behind. It's an enormous power-now for power-later trade, and it's not good design in any way.

I see. I didn't explain it clearly that every class starts with zero experience. In third edition it's the total character level that determines how long does it take to progress in levels. In second edition it's the level in a class that determines it. A fighter takes the same amount of experience to gain level 2, no matter if it's the characters first or third class. Taking a large amount of experience for example, a mage gains the fourth level at 10000 points of experience. The same amount split between two classes, say thief and a mage makes the charcter thief 4/mage 3.

For dual classing, I think you are overestimating the time it takes to gain the old class back, not to mention you keep anything that lets you survive. Again, arbitrarily choosing an amount of experience, let's say I play a fighter until level 3, and then switch to cleric. Level 3 fighter has already 4000 experience, while for cleric reaches the same level in just 3000 experience, which is 1000 points before fighter gets level 4.

Obviously some classes are more compatible with having several classes than others: Generally you don't want to slow down your advancement as a mage even more, but "2-4 levels" behind is hardly the case. You can't really dual class starting as a spellcaster because picking another class stops your progression in the previous class forever. With the way mage is designed, I wouldn't want to switch out of mage after becoming good, but to survive better at low levels. On a final tangent, the bonuses are consistently a little bit higher as ability modifiers go up on even numbers, while in AD&D dexterity starts improving AC at 16, at +1. Which means not being quite caught up in the fighter levels of a multiclass character isn't that big of a deal.

I might have assumed that you, the reader know this before I told you, which I suppose is my fault.

Tomawis wrote:I see. I didn't explain it clearly that every class starts with zero experience. ...
I might have assumed that you, the reader know this before I told you, which I suppose is my fault.

Wow.

Mind blown man. Mind... blown... your points the way you start out talking about obvious trivial irrelevant facts then just sort of forget to bring them back around to any sort of conclusion whatsoever, it's so convincing it's BLOWING MY MIND.

Tomawis wrote:I see. I didn't explain it clearly that every class starts with zero experience. In third edition it's the total character level that determines how long does it take to progress in levels. In second edition it's the level in a class that determines it. A fighter takes the same amount of experience to gain level 2, no matter if it's the characters first or third class. Taking a large amount of experience for example, a mage gains the fourth level at 10000 points of experience. The same amount split between two classes, say thief and a mage makes the charcter thief 4/mage 3.

...Yes, and this proves my point for me. To get to fighter 2 / mage 2 you need the XP of fighter 2 and mage 2, and you must divide the XP you get from your combats in half and spread it into those classes. Since you are spreading your XP into multiple classes, you will be behind in level for all of those classes.

When you spend XP on things, you have less of it left over to spend on other things. The XP penalties mean your highest-level class is ~7/10 of the next guy's highest-level class, so in a level 10 party you're about 2-4 levels behind.

For dual classing, I think you are overestimating the time it takes to gain the old class back, not to mention you keep anything that lets you survive. Again, arbitrarily choosing an amount of experience, let's say I play a fighter until level 3, and then switch to cleric. Level 3 fighter has already 4000 experience, while for cleric reaches the same level in just 3000 experience, which is 1000 points before fighter gets level 4.

It doesn't matter how long it takes because working up to dual-classing is bad and the end result of dual-classing is bad. You are either crappy or you have effectively twice the benefits of someone else. If you are crappy for a long time and good for a short time, or crappy for a short time and good for a long time, it's still bad design.

Tomawis wrote:

Leress wrote: How exactly did you do this experiment, because I can't see how 2ed multi/dual class is better than 3rd's which is pretty bad?

By playing the game. In higher levels it mostly consist of Baldur's Gate, not tabletop. It's not entirely perfect, but it matches up quite well.

Apart from temporarily disabling class abilities, I can't really see what the forum's beef with the AD&D's multi- and dual classing is. It would help me to elaborate if I knew what exactly elaboration is needed on. Something worth adding is that AD&D isn't intended to be fair, like third edition is. Instead it has what I call controlled imbalance, which emphasises that players need to work together to have a full set of abilities. I see what the problem with that is, but it's a fundamental difference between the editions and goes much beyond how the games handle characters with several classes.

An actual tabletop game with actual other people is not going to wait for your newly minted, currently nigh-useless dual-classed character to get back up to snuff. You'll be hilariously ineffective so either the DM has to dumb it down just for you, or the party will struggle through what was previously level appropriate content. Both situations are really pretty awful for everybody around you.

Depending on the exact combination 2ed's multiclassing is sometimes not an issue, but being a shitty fighter AND a shitty wizard is generally speaking a lot worse than being a good fighter OR a good wizard. Both 2nd and 3rd have this issue, and neither should be considered a really good example of what to do if you want a really robust multiclassing system.

Tomawis wrote:

Leress wrote: How exactly did you do this experiment, because I can't see how 2ed multi/dual class is better than 3rd's which is pretty bad?

By playing the game. In higher levels it mostly consist of Baldur's Gate, not tabletop. It's not entirely perfect, but it matches up quite well.

.

There is your problem right fucking there.

It's getting clear to me that discussing the details of AD&D multiclassing is going nowhere, as differences between editions is too volatile an issue to be discussed rationally. May I suggest moving on and perhaps trying to get back to the topic: How to actually make multiclassing work?

Since no one but you is irrationally pining for mechanics from a given edition, it's very easy to look back and find solutions to multi-classing. For example:

...You Lost Me wrote:Good alternatives are mandated prestige classes and sub-classes.

...You Lost Me wrote:When you spend XP on things, you have less of it left over to spend on other things. The XP penalties mean your highest-level class is ~7/10 of the next guy's highest-level class, so in a level 10 party you're about 2-4 levels behind.

Actually You Lost Me, the problem is literally the opposite. Everyone is effectively one level behind in exchange for a bunch of levels in another class.

So at level 1, you are actually a Fighter 1/Mage 1. (HP is divided, so you don't actually have way way more, but you still have more than a Fighter 1.) But then, at level 3 Mage, you are a level 2 Fighter/Mage 1 or 2, and that is arguably worse. But then, when someone else is a level 13 Fighter, you are a Fighter 12/Mage 12.

Basically, no one should ever be a single class fighter, because you can be way stronger (unless you don't have attributes for anything else, see that stupid crap). But on top of that, you could totally just be a Cleric 10/Druid 10 when other people are a Cleric 11.

Tomawis wrote:It's getting clear to me that...

I doubt that.

...get back to the topic: How to actually make multiclassing work?

But... why?

It's been discussed before.

And generally there is not a particularly good reason to have multiclassing as a "thing" at all.

You either want a class based system... or not.

If you want genuinely freely customizable characters class based systems are, regardless of numerous broken "multiclassing" options, rather obviously needlessly restrictive.

If you want a system with class based role definition then multiclassing undermines that AND is unnecessary because there is no reason in hell why you should have a role you want defined that is not already covered by a class. YOU write the role and the class... so why the hell would you have a role you want represented and protected and yet it cannot be covered without some sort of last minute Frankenstein hodge podge?

There are "in betweens" on customizability and class based role protection, but they look like feats, kits, proficiencies or skills. Multiclassing is pretty much universally a crappy concept made out of flimsy poorly placed duct tape and cardboard that no one even can clearly explain a reason for it's existence in the first place.

PhoneLobster wrote:If you want a system with class based role definition then multiclassing undermines that AND is unnecessary because there is no reason in hell why you should have a role you want defined that is not already covered by a class. YOU write the role and the class... so why the hell would you have a role you want represented and protected and yet it cannot be covered without some sort of last minute Frankenstein hodge podge?

There are "in betweens" on customizability and class based role protection, but they look like feats, kits, proficiencies or skills. Multiclassing is pretty much universally a crappy concept made out of flimsy poorly placed duct tape and cardboard that no one even can clearly explain a reason for it's existence in the first place.

Yes. Basically this. Multiclassing is always going to be essentially an over-complicated rubric to design a new class based on poaching mechanics from already existent classes. Even if that was a good idea, you should just make an actual class design system from the get-go. Of course, even a casual glance at the Player's Option series calls into question whether that's a good idea in the first place. But in any case, if you can't or are unwilling to make a class design system where facets of existing classes can be hodgepodged together into new classes, why would you think that a multiclassing system was going to be a good idea? That's what a multiclassing system is.

If you want to give players customizability in a class based system, you have plenty of options that are proven to work. You have the obvious choice of making more classes, but then you also have options to add customizable portions to your character. Skills, kits, feats, powers, spells, sub-classes, templates, talents, traits, paragon classes, equipment, whatever. But you put the character customization into the character customization slots. Not other places.

-Username17

Just, people are getting the numbers wrong both ways.

AD&D XP tables are roughly double every level (except when they aren't) until you hit level 9-12 (depending on class). Then it's linear from there. Like 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 60, 125, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1250, .... Or 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 65, 90, 125, 175, 350, 700, 1050, 1400, ....

So sharing XP means you're 1 level behind in each class, or sometimes 2 levels for Mages and Thieves. Remembering you can really only multiclass Fighter, Cleric, Mage, and Thief. Not the good classes like Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Assassin, unless you can, because whatever, things are kinda random. Half-Orcs can multi Assassin and so on.

Anyway, up to about name level (9-12), you're 1 (rarely 2) levels behind in each class. Then you end up getting half as many levels ever after, from there. Only you're a demi-human so you can't actually get much higher than that anyway. I mean, eventually, in 2nd edition, depending on options. But you're only 4 levels behind if you're about 16th level and the others are 20th. No one got there in 2nd edition anyway, it's fucking three million XP, and that simply never happened in 2nd, because the XP per gp went away and wasn't replaced at all. Ahem. ....




The import thing is though, in 3e, dipping 1 level of Fighter basically gives you exactly that same effect for your multiclass characters. You can use the weapons and armour and have a couple more hit points and just be a Fighter/Mage just like you were playing AD&D, because the class that matters is only 1 level behind where it should be.

So the complaint, that AD&D multiclassing is better, it just doesn't work, because it's the same result as 3e.

Same for Fighter/Rogue or Fighter/Cleric (or Fighter/Psion), which is what most people played anyway. The other common type, Mage/Thief, is a bit tricky in 3e, but 3 levels of Rogue by 10th character level, and 5 by 20th looks pretty similar. Especially if you ignore the cross-class penalty on skills and stupid-ass XP penalty, or play an Elf where it is a classic combo anyway.

And you be a Mage/Cleric by playing a Cleric and taking the Magic Domain. Like it's secretly better to be a strait Wizard and have longbow because you're an Elf or burned a feat. Or be a cleric who uses swords because it's fucking 3e and you can just do that.

I can't tell whether most of the guys are in a good mood this week or if they'rs just being patient with a new poster...

But your seemingly purposeful antagonization of the regulars is not going to help your topic/point/conversation. So, really, you need to re-edit your thread title because there's no butthurt or even fanboyism coming from anyone who has tried to engage you. You need to look back at most of the posts and realize that virtually EVERYONE has said "3e multi-assing sucks, but 2e is even worse".

Also, you absolutely need to REK'NIZE that Baldur's Gate is a poor-as-shit model to use for ACTUAL TABLETOP design discussion. It's a fucking video game. An awesome vidya game, yes, but... Rules. Were. Changed.

Were the rules close to the tabletop material?.... Mostly yes. But no matter what, a tabletop's rules are always going to be modified for use in a videogame for a host of reasons. Always. And normally it is to make the game more fun and/or actually playable in the context of that platform/design space.

Anywah, stop poking people and try to understand what they are telling you. The majority of dennizens replying here grew up playing actual 2e. Some of them even started with 1e. For the vast majority of regulars here it is a disservice to yourself to ASSume they don't actually know what they're talming about.

Did OP just ban himself from his own thread??

I believe he did, yes.

And this guy is no shadzar, so I just can't be arsed unleashing the krakenvitriol.

Oh good, for a minute I was worried that my earlier snark had been responsible for derailing this discussion of whether 3e style open multiclassing's is inherently deeply flawed or only deeply flawed due to the way they interact in conjunction with the spell progression and challenge rating rules

But instead this thread just reinforces my opinion that when someone says "I am for for States' rights, and against paying federal taxes" what they actually mean is "I want to go back to the days where I could own slaves" and when someone says"My favorite edition is 2nd edition" what they are actually mean is "I am incapable of rational discussion, please ignore me"


For the record: 3e multiclassing cannot be fixed within the context of 3e. You could write a whole new game that used 3e style open multiclassing, but class to make it work:

• Base classes would have to be much much shorter.
• Each level of a class would have to be mainly cumulative numeric bonuses (BAB, Saves, Skills, Hit Points, Sneak Attack) and a few lower-level horizontal power abilities
• Each and every ability and defense which is a function of character level would have to be independent of base class. This means ditching the entire OD&D-3.5 spell list and starting over, which is not easy and is very anti-nostalgic, but once you accept that, there are several solutions. You could do this along the lines of feat-trees with level prereqs -- although that would be really hard and chok-full of trap options for players. You could do this along the lines of handing out abilities at various bonus levels (so in addition to getting an iterative attack at +6 BAB, characters would get things like immunity to poison at +10 Base Fort save and Invisibility at +3d6 sneak attack) but that would result in high-level characters being very samey. Or as many have said, you could go the 4e paragon path/epic destiny route where various tiers of play forced you to take new classes which gave level appropriate abilities.

But if you are going that far into a rewrite it's really worth asking if you might not just be better writing up a game without multiclassing - either due to point buy chargen, or having a enough distinct single-classes to cover the flavor of most multiclass combos (ftr,thf, clr, mu only multiclass into 15 permutations), or by having a single-class like the Rolemaster "No Profession" that can be used by players to create a custom class.

Josh_Kablack wrote: But instead this thread just reinforces my opinion that when someone says "I am for for States' rights, and against paying federal taxes" what they are actually mean is "I want to go back to the days where I could own slaves" and when someone says"My favorite edition is 2nd edition" what they are actually mean is "I am incapable of rational discussion, please ignore me"

Granted.

But if you are going that far into a rewrite it's really worth asking if you might not just be better writing up a game without multiclassing - either due to point buy chargen, or having a enough distinct single-classes to cover the flavor of most multiclass combos (ftr,thf, clr, mu only multiclass into 15 permutations)

Wait. What? Ftr/Thf/Clr/McU is four points, and if you allow the order to matter that's 12 permutations, and it's only 6 if you don't. That is, you can get 12 permutations if Cleric-Thief is different from Thief-Cleric, and only 6 if those are the same thing. I have no idea where you're getting 15 permutations. Pretty sure that's simply mathematically wrong.

That being said, the fact that there really are only 6 two-class combos and 4 three-class combos available with AD&D style multiclassing means that there is really obviously no need for the concept. You could just write ten classes, including the Ninja (Ftr/Thf/McU) and the Assassin (Ftr/Thf/Clr).

-Username17