And how many of you allowed them to do it anyway?
Now theoretically, if they had a 17 in all the Prime requisites...such as a thief with a 17 dexterity, who had a 17 intelligence, and then became a Wizards...
There's nothing in the rules forbidding that Wizard to switch back to a thief, as long as they fulfill the requisites to do so...
Note this IS off the top of my head, but if I recall all they had to do was meet the Prime Requisite requirements...
So as long as they had the stats to be somewhat talented in that class, there was nothing restircting anyone from doing that, at least according to the core rulebooks.
Never had anyone try it, but theoritecally I would assume there's nothing there to prevent it.
But it also specifically says that once you switch you can't go back to a class you've already left. I remember not liking that much when I used to play 2nd edition and I don't much like it now (especially with the strict ability requirments). I personally think it takes alot of the "advantage" of being human away.
In fact, I mind the ability requirments more than the "can't go back" rule but I guess they didn't want you to have a few levels in EVERY class. Which is all well and good but why such high stats when your average character's stats are something like a range of 9 to 12.
dual classing was available to Humans only. dual means two...ergo you could only dual class into one other class.
this is from OD&D(1974)... you may dual class if you have a score of 16 or higher in your prime req. ability of the new class.
the bard of 1edADnD was the exception to the rule... in that you took one class(ft), then another(th), and then trained in yet another(dr)...but actually started progressing as a bard.
the way dual classing worked. you took your first class, progressed to some level, then took your second class, you lost the benefits of the first class for reasons of xp progression...if you switched back to using powers of the first class at any point during an adventure you couldn't progress in your second class nor gain xps until you restarted...
so a pal 5/ m-u 1 ...would be lousy in a fight. but if he needed it to survive could call on his reserve and fight like a pal 5 again...only he gained no xps nor was he able to use his mu abilities again until he restarted/retrained/refocused...whatever the DM decided was necessary.
as soon as the second class exceeded the first class in lvls you could use both.
First of all, you could "dual class" in any number of classes that you wanted but you had to have a 16 in the prime requisit that you started with and a 17 in each prime requisit that you switched to (so you probably couldn't do it at all much less have more than two classes anyway..lol).
In 2nd edition the bard dual classes just like anyone else. But, yes, humans are the only ones that can do it. It (along with unlimited level advancement) was supposed to be the benefit of playing humans. But I've found that nobody plays them anyway due to the power of the other races (I don't know anyone who doesn't allow demihumans to go past max levels with some sort of xp penalty, etc).
The rest of it was the same in 2nd edition. You had to stop using your old class abilities while you were learning to do new things, etc.
So, I guess a better question to replace what I originally asked would be: Did anybody do anything in their 2nd edition days to make humans a little more viable? :D
I remember a letter in an old Dragon where a DM mentioned that he allowed all humans to add a +1 to any ability score they choose at character creation. So, I'm thinking things like that (or whatever you or your DMs may have done).
Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter
Your both right. its a 15/17 in 1e and no more than tow classes (Except for bards.) and a 16/17 in 2e (Unlimited number of classes to choose as long as you qualified.). In neither case could you go back to the old class(es).
Strike that, reverse it. It is 15/17 in 2e (though you have the # of classes for 2e right). I can't speak for 1e, though.
It is, in fact, 15 / 17 for both editions, and unlimited classes if you qualify for 2e, and one class if you qualify for 1e, and in neither case can you go back to an old class (I just checked both Player's Handbooks.).
Originally posted by Falstaff the Fighter
Yes indeed. Oh well, they say the mind is the first thing to go.
It is, in fact, 15 / 17 for both editions, and unlimited classes if you qualify for 2e, and one class if you qualify for 1e, and in neither case can you go back to an old class (I just checked both Player's Handbooks.).
Ah, looking it up on page 45, I now see it...last paragraph, last sentence, where it says he cannot swithc back tot he first class at a later date hopign to resume his advancement where he left off.
Good eye...never had any players try it so I never really had to look that up...Good eye.
My players favor a system where the human is also allowed to multi-class (any combination up to three classes assuming he has all the needed stats, etc) and demihumans don't have max levels. I personally think that breaks the game quite a bit. Any thoughts?
I'd see no problem with giving them the ability to multiclass in up to three classes, though... as long as a multi-classed human couldn't also dual-class ;)
Originally posted by GreyLord
Ah, looking it up on page 45, I now see it...last paragraph, last sentence, where it says he cannot swithc back tot he first class at a later date hopign to resume his advancement where he left off.
Good eye...never had any players try it so I never really had to look that up...Good eye.
yeah, just like the bard. you stopped advancing in your first class as soon as you dual classed. in the case of the bard he stopped advancing in the second class too once he trained as a druid...and started progressing as a bard.
i guess my above post was clear enough.
the deal with dual classing was to make sure you had the optimal levels in your first class before you dual classed to the second class.
Sure, an elf-mage could never get 6th level spells [until U/A, but work with me here
], but they could wear armor and swing swords, and the slowed advancement meant that they still had something to gain after a single-class pc would have reached their peak level.Dual Class Characters were kind of an off duck, and I think that Gygax et al intended to discourage them, which to me they did. In all my years of playing and DMing, I only ran across two bards, and no human D/C's
Originally posted by vader42xx
So, I guess a better question to replace what I originally asked would be: Did anybody do anything in their 2nd edition days to make humans a little more viable? :D
My plan is to give Humans an extra 10% experience, to reflect how quickly they grasp and adapt to new situations (virtually all the official game worlds are human dominated, so as a race they must have something special going on within them.
From a game mechanic point of view (and I have nothing as yet to back this up as we haven't got that far), I'm hoping that the human character will hit (my) maximum 20th level, round about the time the other demihumans are hitting their racial levels in their various classes.
I did no maths on this at all, it just seemed a simple way to encourage people to play humans in what is clearly a human dominated (this is FR by the way) world.
Originally posted by vader42xx
In either case, did nobody do anything with humans to make them more viable?
Perhaps it is simply a difference of style, but since when does not being the perceived "most powerful/versatile/bestest-at-everything" character-ever make one any less viable/playable?
For the record, even under DM's who did allow unlimited advancement to demi's, I always enjoied my human PCs much more than my others. And having played since 1992, I only once played an elf.
Originally posted by vader42xx
So, I guess a better question to replace what I originally asked would be: Did anybody do anything in their 2nd edition days to make humans a little more viable? :D
One word: racism. Not lynchings or anything extreme like that, but people charging an extra 10-50% for items, "running out of room" at the inn, and so forth when dealing with members of other races. Since the world is human dominated, this affects the demi-humans a lot more than them.
You can also tweak this idea by giving different regions different degrees of prejudice against different races. Imagine the human city with a degree of elven influence that has laws against dwarves drinking in public because they will start trouble :D Dwarves will get the shaft; humans, elves, and halfelves won't be discriminated against; halflings and gnomes will be at normal level of prejudice.
Originally posted by vader42xx
Thanks for all the help, but my original question still remains. Does anyone think that humans simply aren't good enough?
My players favor a system where the human is also allowed to multi-class (any combination up to three classes assuming he has all the needed stats, etc) and demihumans don't have max levels. I personally think that breaks the game quite a bit. Any thoughts?
Rule 0
DM can houserule it as he sees fit.
If that's what the players want, and you're willing to let them...then no...as long as you can balance it out.
Just remember, what they can do...so can your NPC's...even the evil ones.
I'm going to use the character options from Skills and Powers but only with respect to building your race (so classes stay the same, and I'm using proficiencies instead of character points). With that option I can add a character point option for the human race. They can spend all of their points (thus giving up the ability to buy other racial advantages) to gain the ability to multi-class as any one demihuman but without level limits. If they take this option they lose the ability to dual class.
I think that solution keeps the balance of the game (humans are still best for single class characters and demihuans are still best for multi-class characters) but makes humans a little more flexible in terms of how much fun they are. I'm also allowing demihumans to go beyond level limits both by having high ability scores and by paying double xp to advance beyond a level limit.
Ironically many people felt the 1ed bard was a poor choice due to such slow advancement. The reality was that at very high levels a bard -- even with maxed fighter and thief levels -- would be much higher in level than any other player character class with the same amount of experience points.
This means that at very high levels bards were far better druids than druids were.
Sarta