Anyone else miss old school multiclassing?

[tomfar72]

Well, like the title says, does anyone miss it? I do. I used to be a big PnPer, and was an elf junkie. A cpl of my favorite characters wre my fighter/wizard and my halfelf cleric/wizard. I know you can make characters like that now in DDO, but they aren't as effective as they were in PnP.(Granted, my last PnPing was done in the time of AD&D) The way it used to work was you would pick whatever classes you wanted at creation and all experience was split evenly between your classes as you lvled. Health would be split also, say a fighter/wizard would get 1d10/2 rounded up per fighter lvl and 1d4/2 rounded up per Wiz lvl. You would lvl up slower than a pure class as your xp would be split, and there were no splashes, your classes pretty much lvled up @the same rate. Each of your class lvls would end up a cpl lvls below that of a pure class, but the difference wouldn't be so great as to make them useless. In DDO, if you were to try this you would have a 10fighter/10wiz that couldn't hit anything with his sword and couldn't hurt anything with it's spells. The way spell dc's work in DDO, if you want to be an effective arcane caster you either have to stay pure or slash a lvl or 2 max. It's kind of a shame imo. I know they can't go to the old style multiclasses because they may too powerful in an MMO setting. I mean, why wouldn't you make a 17fighter/17Wiz instead of a 20 fighter or 20 wiz if all it took was more time?

I did have a thought though. What if they made spell DCs scale off your total lvl as opposed to your caster lvl? It may seem overpowered, but I don't think so. If you wanted to make a true 10fighter/10Wiz you would never get access to the most powerful spells anyway, but atleast the spells you have would have a chance of landing at higher lvls.

I'm not saying I tihink they should revamp the multiclass system, I'm just being nostalgic.

[Visty]

which edition youre talking about?
1st, 2nd, AD&D?
cause 3rd edition its certainly not^^

[Chai]

Hated it. ADnD 1.0 multiclassing was for the birds. I think 3.5 is still the best edition for multi-class characters.

The reason being in ADnD, you had to pick your multiclass from the beginning and split your xp between both classes. This did not accurately represent the character life progression of getting so far in doing one thing, then wanting to learn other skills, and training in a different class for that purpose later on. This type of multiclassing required you to make all class decisions in the beginning of the character creation.

Also: Humans could not multi-class, but humans could be any one class. Other races could multi-class but there were some classes that other races could not be. For instance, dwarfs could not be wizards. Only humans could be monks.

Also: The XP for each class to attain the next level was not the same. You could end up with a level 7 thief / 5 magic user because thief was the easiest to level and magic user one of the hardest. The same amount of xp would make a pure fighter only level 10.

In regular DnD, elves WERE the multiclass, and basically a fighter mage.

[Rav'n]

2.0 and 2.5 fan myself. My first TR'd character was actually supposed to be a 10/10 Fighter-Thief Build. Then the PrE's came out and I had to make a choice. He's since been TR'd to 18/2 Rogue/Fighter.

[tomfar72]

Hated it. ADnD 1.0 multiclassing was for the birds. I think 3.5 is still the best edition for multi-class characters.

The reason being in ADnD, you had to pick your multiclass from the beginning and split your xp between both classes. This did not accurately represent the character life progression of getting so far in doing one thing, then wanting to learn other skills, and training in a different class for that purpose later on. This type of multiclassing required you to make all class decisions in the beginning of the character creation.

Also: Humans could not multi-class, but humans could be any one class. Other races could multi-class but there were some classes that other races could not be. For instance, dwarfs could not be wizards. Only humans could be monks.

Also: The XP for each class to attain the next level was not the same. You could end up with a level 7 thief / 5 magic user because thief was the easiest to level and magic user one of the hardest. The same amount of xp would make a pure fighter only level 10.

In regular DnD, elves WERE the multiclass, and basically a fighter mage.

I disagree with ya on AD&D multiclassing being for the birds, but to each his own. I know you had to pick your classes at the begining. You say that doesn't represent how someone would learn something then decide they wanted to use other skill and train in another class. This is how dual classing worked, not multiclassing. As it is if you start as a wizard, then decide you want to train as a fighter, you don't suddenly give up casting spells and just play as a fighter. You use both at the same time. This is why I liked the old system better. If you are using both wizard and fighter skills/spells equaly, you gradualy get better at both.(ie gain experience in both) You don't take a lvl of fighter, only cast spells and suddenly you are a better fighter at the next level when you take another lvl of fighter. Experience is supposed to represent you increasing your skills due to having more experience using them..if you are using both, why wouldn't your skill increase in both at the same time? This is how the AD&D system was.

Believe it or not, I LIKED that some races couldn't be certain classes. It added flavor to the game imo. Dwarves couldn't be wizards because as a race they didn't trust in magic. Humans couldn't multiclass (though they could dual class) because as the shortest lived race, they did not have the time and patience to study 2 classes at once. Only humans could be monks because they would be the only race that would try to look inwardly to find the path to enlightenment, where as the other races were long lived enough to know their place in the world. I think things like made the races different, not just in what abilities they get, but in their mindset towards the rest of the world.

You are correct, the original D&D elf was the true multiclass fighter/wizard. They didn't have the HP or attack bonuses of a pure fighter and didn't have access to as many spells or high lvl spells that a wizard had. They were an effective class that could either melee and cast, though not quite as good as a pure class. Alot of people come to this game looking to make a fighter/wizard or battlemage and have the original elf as what they have in mind. The only problem is, you really can't make a character like that under the current system. I've searched the forums alot and the concensus is the best battle mage is @ 18Wiz/2Fighter, because you give up way to much in the arcane dpt if you slash more than 2 lvls. 2 lvls of fighter may get you a cpl feats and more weapons, but you still aren't going to hit anything. I'm not saying you can't make an elf 10Wiz/10fighter and have alot of fun with it, I'm just saying that at endgame it is going to be a very gimped build that will probably have a hard time finding groups which is sad for an archetypical build that has existed for a long time in PnP. I know they aren't going to change the system, and that's fine. I just wish they would take a look at it and maybe address it in the form of either a racial or possibly multiclass PRE. Alot of people think of elves as archers and they have added the Elf Arcane Archer PRE. I think just as many ppl think of elves (even drow) as fighter/wizards and I just wish they do something to make it more viable.

[Rav'n]

Believe it or not, I LIKED that some races couldn't be certain classes. It added flavor to the game imo. Dwarves couldn't be wizards because as a race they didn't trust in magic. Humans couldn't multiclass (though they could dual class) because as the shortest lived race, they did not have the time and patience to study 2 classes at once. Only humans could be monks because they would be the only race that would try to look inwardly to find the path to enlightenment, where as the other races were long lived enough to know their place in the world. I think things like made the races different, not just in what abilities they get, but in their mindset towards the rest of the world.

I SOOOOOOOO Agree with you on this. Nothing better than having to pay a price for the choices you make. Whether it's Race, class, alignment... whatever.

[Morningfrost]

Believe it or not, I LIKED that some races couldn't be certain classes. It added flavor to the game imo. Dwarves couldn't be wizards because as a race they didn't trust in magic. Humans couldn't multiclass (though they could dual class) because as the shortest lived race, they did not have the time and patience to study 2 classes at once.

I agree with you, this added a lot of flavor.

[Morningfrost]

The reason being in ADnD, you had to pick your multiclass from the beginning and split your xp between both classes. This did not accurately represent the character life progression of getting so far in doing one thing, then wanting to learn other skills, and training in a different class for that purpose later on. This type of multiclassing required you to make all class decisions in the beginning of the character creation.

I guess this was to show how non human races were less specialized. On the other hand, only humans had no level cap in any class.

[Chai]

The way spell dc's work in DDO, if you want to be an effective arcane caster you either have to stay pure or slash a lvl or 2 max. It's kind of a shame imo. I know they can't go to the old style multiclasses because they may too powerful in an MMO setting. I mean, why wouldn't you make a 17fighter/17Wiz instead of a 20 fighter or 20 wiz if all it took was more time?

The way spell DCs really work in DDO (and in 3.5) is 10 + spell level + ability mod + feat, enhancement and item mod. It is not based on class level, but spell level. Now, heighten spell changes this as it allows you to cast the spell at your most powerful level, with the same SP cost of a spell at your most powerful level, and the same DC. This is good for class balance because a multi-class is TRADING having other class abilities for having a lesser DC when heighten is being used, and not gaining the more powerful spells until later levels.

Spell Penetration is based on class level + d20 roll + feats, enhancements, and item mods. Multiclassers take a hit here, but again, this is good for class balance because a multi-class is TRADING having other class abilities for having a lesser spell pen mod. All these 2 rogue / 18 wizards running around are trading 2 spell pen and having less spells memorized at some levels for rogue skills and evasion.

In multi-class case scenarios, there is a trade off, you gain something and you lose something. This is why I believe 3.5 got it right where other versions did not.

A 17 fighter 17 wiz would be 34 class levels and would be hella more powerful than any pure 20. This is where the balance thing comes in again. You can make a 10 / 10 and when you do you see how you gain AND lose in some areas. Even if the same amount of xp allowed for a 15 / 15 -or- a pure 20. If I have a 15 barbarian / 15 fighter, how is this NOT more powerful than a pure 20 fighter or pure 20 barb? Frenzied beserker 2 AND kensai 2 on the same toon? Oh man...Possible toss 3 levels of each to get ranger 6...LOL you see right where this is going hehehehehehe!!!

[gavagai]

In 2e, DUAL-CLASSING was the bomb. But it took a little patience from the group.

Take a Human Ranger to 18, say, then Dual to a level 1 Wiz. Retain full Ranger hitpoints (and ThacO?), everything else is the same as a Wizard 1 in a level 18 campaign.

Pike for a little while. By the time everyone else hits level 19, you're already a level 14 Wizard or thereabouts.

When you hit level 19: BAM! Full level 18 Ranger/level 19 Wizard, full Ranger HPs and ThacO, level normally as a Wiz til eternity.... so sexy...

[Rydin_Dirtay]

I'm a big AD&D 2.0 fan too. And Greyhawk.

One thing I do like about 3.0/3.5 is the Fort, Reflex and Will Saving Throw system. Imo it is far less obtuse than the Death Ray, Poison, Wand/Staff/Rod etc. save system in 1.0/2.0.

But some things in 3.0/3.5 are for the birds.

[Uska]

Not really in 1st and 2nd edtion only demihumans got to multiclass of course they had class limits to. Humans could dual class if they had the stats at least in 1st ed cant remember if that was an option in 2nd or not. So over all I like the 3.x system better.

[Rydin_Dirtay]

Not in my world man, Dwarves for instance, are not magical, they only have divine "magic" from their priests. But alas that's not DDO.

[Dylos_Moon]

I did have a thought though. What if they made spell DCs scale off your total lvl as opposed to your caster lvl? It may seem overpowered, but I don't think so. If you wanted to make a true 10fighter/10Wiz you would never get access to the most powerful spells anyway, but atleast the spells you have would have a chance of landing at higher lvls.

I don't know what game you're playing, but in DDO, a spell caster's spell DC is dependent on the level of the spell, and their casting stat modifier (wisdom, charisma, or intelligence). The exact formula for Spell DC is 10+Spell Level+Stat Mod, character level or class level is no where in the formula. However, the damage of most spells come from your class level, and I would see no reason why enhancements that increased a multiclassed spell caster's caster level to be a problem (i.e. practiced spell caster - which turbine has said they do not wish to implement, despite there already being a few items that raise caster level for specific elements.)

The only way a spell's DC will go up when you level is if you have Heighten, in which case the spell also increases in SP cost. Yes, you will gain additional intelligence on a wizard if you get to cap, however after level 10, until the capstone, you don't get anymore intelligence from enhancements. A Wizard10/Fighter10 can have the same DC fireball as a Wizard18/Rogue2 assuming the later did not take heighten.

[tomfar72]

I don't know what game you're playing, but in DDO, a spell caster's spell DC is dependent on the level of the spell, and their casting stat modifier (wisdom, charisma, or intelligence). The exact formula for Spell DC is 10+Spell Level+Stat Mod, character level or class level is no where in the formula. However, the damage of most spells come from your class level, and I would see no reason why enhancements that increased a multiclassed spell caster's caster level to be a problem (i.e. practiced spell caster - which turbine has said they do not wish to implement, despite there already being a few items that raise caster level for specific elements.)

The only way a spell's DC will go up when you level is if you have Heighten, in which case the spell also increases in SP cost. Yes, you will gain additional intelligence on a wizard if you get to cap, however after level 10, until the capstone, you don't get anymore intelligence from enhancements. A Wizard10/Fighter10 can have the same DC fireball as a Wizard18/Rogue2 assuming the later did not take heighten.

Heh, I'm playing the same game as you, but honestly don't have experience playing a high lvl arcane caster. All I know is according to everything I've read in the forums an arcane caster should stay pure of maybe splash 2 lvls max of another class or they will be greatly gimping their casting ability. No one really went into HOW this would gimp you. I assumed it was a DC thing, but according to a previous poster it is more of a spell resistance/penetration thing.

[Anderei]

As far as I can remember, you had 2 choices in ADnD,

either multiclass from the start, splitting experience into your 2 classes.

Or you could multiclass later on, then every new level will only go into your new class, you would not be able to advance in your old class.

[tomfar72]

As far as I can remember, you had 2 choices in ADnD,

either multiclass from the start, splitting experience into your 2 classes.

Or you could multiclass later on, then every new level will only go into your new class, you would not be able to advance in your old class.

Yup, the second was dual classing. Say you lvled to lvl5 as a wizard then trained as a fighter, you couldn't lvl as a wizard again until your fighter level was equal(or 1 greater..can't remember..it's been a LONG tome) than your wiz level. Then you could assign experience to whichever class you wanted with some discretion from your DM.(if you killed a monster using only spells, he could require you to assign the experience you gained to your Wizard class)

[honkuimushi]

I liked 2nd Edition and that's what I've played the most of in terms of Pnp. But I generally like 3rd edition better in terms of multiclassing, especially for non-spellcasters. It's just so much easier to customise, in large part because of the addition of BAB and expansion of the skill system.

Where it failed was in casters because there is no equivalent to BAB for casting progression. However it was sort of patched through PrCs and feats like Practiced Spellcaster.

If you want a Fighter/Mage you could take the Eldritch Knight PrC and gain 10 BAB and 9 caster levels from the 10 levels in the class. If you had later books you could go with a more complex mix like the Fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Spellsword 3/ Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight 6. That mix has a BAB of 17 and casts spells as a level 17 Wizard. If you have Practiced Spellcaster, your spells will be cast at caster level 20. And you can wear mithril full plate and have you shield spell duration doubled and grant you more than the regular +4 to AC.

If you want to go with the Mage / Cleric concept, you have the Mystic Theurge which grants full progression of arcane and divine spellcasting classes over 10 levels.

The problem with the solution is that until you can take the PrC, you have a hard time really reflecting both sides of your character. Still, I think that with these fixes, 3rd edition is better for multiclassing. One of my biggest hopes for 4th edition was for a caster equivalent of BAB. But the limited multiclassing they went with was a big factor in my disillusionment with 4th edition.

[Samadhi]

yrd - nryrt tr[;u om yjr fitire

[Morningfrost]

I'm not saying I tihink they should revamp the multiclass system, I'm just being nostalgic.

I did not know nothing about 3.5 when I started playing DDO, and I found the multiclassing system weird. I still like the AD&D multiclass system (nobody in my group ever played a multiclassed charachter).

I wish to add that only demi-human races could multiclass, and only human, IIRC, could be dual-classed.

Also, barbarians in AD&D could only be humans and single-classed, I still think it is a very logic design. I mean, I am a trained wizard or cleric, and suddenly I decide to go wild?