Would a -10% penalty to xp for multiclass be acceptable?

[Lord Dynel]

I thought of making this a poll...I like polls.
Seriously, though. One of my more "enterprising" players had the epiphany that the levels of multiclass characters are as good as single class characters. Here are my rules for multiclassing:

My house rules wrote:
At 1st level, a character may select two classes (and only two classes) and may multiclass those two classes. The player must have the prime attribute from each class. The character divides experience gained between the two classes. When a new level is gained, roll the hit die for the appropriate class, add Con modifier and divide by two. The character must abide by the strictest armor restrictions, but gets the more liberal weapon selection and the character uses the best base to hit bonus between the classes.

Here is a paraphrased conversation:

Him: Hey, I noticed something.

Me: What's that?

Him: I noticed that under your multiclass rules, character levels for multiclass characters are about the same as they would be for single class characters. If that's the case, then why would anyone single class?

Me: Care to give me an example?

Him: Let's pretend you have a 10th level fighter, with 600,000 XP. Now, for a multiclass character under your rules, that would be 300,000/300,000.

Me: Okay...

Him: Let's say that you have a multiclass Fighter/Cleric with 300,000/300,000. That would make him a Fighter 9/Cleric 8. Do you see anything wrong with that?

Me: Like?

Him: It seems he's nearly twice as powerful as the other party members. Won't that unbalance the game?

Me: Well, it's not 3.5, that's for certain. Don't think in those terms. The power levels are much smoother than in 3.5. If you had a fighter/cleric in 3.5 that had 300k/300k xp, then he'd be severely behind the other party members in power. Not so in C&C.

Him: Still, it seems like there should be a penalty, like "dividing your attention between classes causes strain on the character," or something like that.

Me: What would you suggest, if you were CK.

Him: Maybe a -10% to earned XP.

Me: Okay, I'll think about that.

That conversation made me think:

1) How do you guys feel about multiclass characters? Are they powerful in relation to single-class characters? Have any of your players thought, "Wow, I won't be losing too much in levels, so I should always multiclass! " (I think this was one of his underlying points).

2) Would an XP penalty be acceptable, as an advantage to remain single-class?

I don't want to deter anyone from multi-classing, but at the same time I don't want to make it too easy for players by giving them access to two classes with no drawbacks (if there should be some). I think his main issue was that he's coming to C&C fresh from years of 3.5, and sees a Ftr 9/Clr 8 in a party of 10th level characters and freaks out. He also stated in the conversation that the 9/8 character "can fight almost as well as the 10th level fighter and 'pray' almost as good as the 10th level cleric" (again, paraphrased).

He made his argument good enough for me to rethink it. What do you all think?

[serleran]

No, a -10% XP gain is meaningless at low levels where the ability to multiclass is far more important and powerful (at higher levels, magical items tend to overcome limitations on what a PC can do.) We currently allow multiclassing at a -25% XP rate and everyone used it as there is, at low levels, virtually no reason to not -- it is only at higher levels that it matters (and, keeps you fighting the same type of stuff longer...) where the game just gets slow anyway.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[anonymous]

For me it's not applicable, since only non-human characters multiclass. Elves must multiclass as Wizards, because I want to get back towards Holmes Basic type elves. Gnomes must multiclass an illusionists. Not quite sure what to do about dwarves yet...

[Treebore]

Trust me, multi classing is very powerful and multi class players won't even suffer much of a draw back unless you run a very high level campaign, like 15th+ level, when they will be several levels worth of power behind. That is the only time the versatility starts to not offset the power of being a single class.

So unless you run games to those kinds of levels it is always better to be multi class.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Aramis]

Multi classing has usually been a "good deal" in a min/maxing sense throughout D&D, and was so even in 3.5, especially for non spellcasters

So, the first question should be: are you multi classing because of a cool concept, or to maximize your fun, or, are you trying to out "uber" the other players?

The example of the cleric / fighter is perhaps too favourable to the multiclasser. Consider instead a fighter/wizard, fighter/rogue, rogue/wizard, or even a cleric/wizard. These mixes are common, especially a dash of wizard, because the lower level wizard often has little to do beyond a well timed spell once per combat.

Let's compare a fighter wizard to your straight fighter of 10th level, where the XP minimum is 500k, not 600k, so let's use that number.

He is 8th/8th, so his fighting ability is noticeably worse than the 10th level fighter (actually a 10th level fighter is getting a 2nd attack! But that is a fluke of the level we have chosen to discuss, so we will just think in terms of BtH). But not radically worse by any means. And he gets a bunch of spells to boot. How can you not multi class?

Well, now the importance of your limitations become clear.

That multi classer will have poor AC, because of his wizard (or rogue) levels. Not so keen to mix it up now is he, now that he is wearing nothing more than leggings and a puffy shirt
Also, those 120 maximum HP the 10th level fighter (16 CON) had have disappeared too. Because we had to dedicate that 16 to INT for our wizard levels, our CON bonus is 0. And our max HP is (8x10 divided by 2 + 8x4 divided by 2) so 56ish (someone check that math!)

You sure you want to make maximum use of that Bearded Axe specialisation with those HP and nothing more than a puffy shirt and a smile
There are ways around this of course. He can specialise in throwing daggers to avoid melee and so on, but it complicates his life quite a bit compared to the straight 10th level fighter.

Don't feel too badly for the multi classer, as he has 19 spells to console himself with, in addition to fighting at 8th level. Like I said, multi classing is a "good deal" if you are going all min max, but it has many limitations as well. The important thing is, don't do it for the min max, do it for the fun
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[moriarty777]

I was never fussy on some of the various multiclassing options I've seen. Using some of these as a base, I developed an alternative which I found works very well.

Follow the link after my sig... and you'll find it there. There isn't much else there at the moment since I'm going to do a revamp in the near future. I'm not suggesting you use it but it might provide you with a few other ideas.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[serleran]

Quote:
You sure you want to make maximum use of that Bearded Axe specialisation with those HP and nothing more than a puffy shirt and a smile

Yes, and I'll tell you why -- you're forgetting what the wizard class is adding: all those spells, like shield which makes the character virtually impervious to missile attacks, or even immunity to normal weapons, requiring his foes to strike with magical weapons which they may not have, meaning the AC and HP of the character are irrelevant. And, he can cast one spell and possibly destroy an entire regiment of opposition, whereas his counterpart, the straight level 10 fighter, has to hope they have 1 HD so he can use combat dominance.

So, yeah -- given the option from a purely mechanical point of view, multiclassing is nearly always better.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Aramis]

serleran wrote:
Yes, and I'll tell you why -- you're forgetting what the wizard class is adding: all those spells, like shield which makes the character virtually impervious to missile attacks, or even immunity to normal weapons, requiring his foes to strike with magical weapons which they may not have, meaning the AC and HP of the character are irrelevant. And, he can cast one spell and possibly destroy an entire regiment of opposition, whereas his counterpart, the straight level 10 fighter, has to hope they have 1 HD so he can use combat dominance.

So, yeah -- given the option from a purely mechanical point of view, multiclassing is nearly always better.

As I said, multi classing is almost always a good deal.

However, shield does not "make the character virtually impervious to missile attacks", it makes them impervious to the much rarer _magic_ missile attacks. For standard attacks, it grants a decent AC bonus, but only for attacks from the front. That will prove very important.

However, there is no denying the more general point that multi classing allows a "stacking" of abilities and powers. But this has its costs as well. If our bearded axer is planning on casting Shield, protection from evil and protection from normal missiles (plus maybe a haste for those important 'Boss' fights), he runs into another issue. Each round he dedicates to buffing cannot be dedicated to fighting. Some combats, he will find the whole thing has been resolved in the three rounds he has been buffing

Again, this is not a sufficient penalty to make one think that multi classing is not a 'good deal', but there is an inconvenience attached that is often not mentioned

Somewhat related- this discussion has actually made me think that it is the spellcasters who benefit from C&C style multi classing, rather than non spellcasters, who benefitted in 3.5 multi classing. This is because their spell casting capacity is almost the same as a single classer, and in addition they can fight or thieve etc. like a champ.

However, a 2 level deficit between single and multi class spellcasters can still be a noticeable loss.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[Treebore]

Lets not forget the save issue. Why should a multiclass character get better saves than a single class character, when they both have the XP's?

Take Gygax's rules, as an example. He allows a multi class character to add 1/2 of their second class to their saves. Why? Shouldn't it be based on total XP's rather than levels?

Doing this effectively gives such PC's a extra bonus to saves, skill checks, and anything else where level is added.

So an 8/8 character in effect gets a +4 magical item to their saves and level based checks simply because they multi classed instead of going single classed. Which is still +2 better than the 10th level character and is only matched by a 12th level character.

Sorry, but that is bad design to allow multi class characters to do that.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[serleran]

Quote:
Some combats, he will find the whole thing has been resolved in the three rounds he has been buffing

Then that was a combat he didn't need to buff in the first place, but its always nicer to look in hindsight, yes? Class combination has little to do with this situation.

Quote:
However, shield does not "make the character virtually impervious to missile attacks", it makes them impervious to the much rarer _magic_ missile attacks. For standard attacks, it grants a decent AC bonus, but only for attacks from the front. That will prove very important.

Really, the C&C version doesn't allow placement wherever you want it? So, you cannot specify to protect the rear? Wow. Shield in C&C is wussier compared to every other version. Oh well. That'll learn me (I haven't actually ever used the spell in C&C, finding it easier to just not be a target instead.)

At least we agree that multiclass characters make out like bandits. And, yes, spellcasters (at least wizards and illusionists) do far better in C&C with multiclassing, like they did in AD&D, where they gain and not lose -- a level or two is something, but considering the added HP, the weapon skills, and whatever else they might have due to class-based rules, that might not be as significant: for example, a wizard-rogue with backstab vs. a standard mage -- one invisibility spell and a move silently check and wham, goodnight. But, I always think high level spellcaster fights come down to who wins initiative, anyway; well, almost. The real pain for multiclassed spellcasters is the delay in making their own magic items, but, when they do, if they happen to be arcane/divine, well, there is not much they can't make.

One thing we did not mention was the wizard's familiar, if he has one -- that can make up for some of those "lost fighter levels."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Aramis]

Treebore wrote:
Lets not forget the save issue. Why should a multiclass character get better saves than a single class character, when they both have the XP's?

Take Gygax's rules, as an example. He allows a multi class character to add 1/2 of their second class to their saves. Why? Shouldn't it be based on total XP's rather than levels?

Doing this effectively gives such PC's a extra bonus to saves, skill checks, and anything else where level is added.

So an 8/8 character in effect gets a +4 magical item to their saves and level based checks simply because they multi classed instead of going single classed. Which is still +2 better than the 10th level character and is only matched by a 12th level character.

Sorry, but that is bad design to allow multi class characters to do that.

Still sore about Nate's game
I agree a multi classer should definitely not have better saves than a single classer. That was one advantage of the 3.5 rules, the multi classer had more diverse bonuses to saves (as one would expect with multiple classes) but the single classer was superior in his area of expertise

However, attributing only 1 classes level to the save is also somewhat unfair. As you say, it needs to be based off of total XPs somehow. The tricky bit in trying to attribute a single level to the multi classer is what XP chart to use. The single class chart you use would have to change depending on what mix of classes you belonged to

I am confident that some of the chart expert people like serleran would have no trouble coming up with something

On a completely unrelated note, when I use various keys on my keyboard (quotations and question marks etc.,) this message shows weird Hungarian accented As and Es. Just started in this message group, and I just tried typing something out of this message group and it is normal. Very weird
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[gideon_thorne]

Aramis wrote:
However, shield does not "make the character virtually impervious to missile attacks", it makes them impervious to the much rarer _magic_ missile attacks. For standard attacks, it grants a decent AC bonus, but only for attacks from the front. That will prove very important.

I dunno, as ambiguously worded as the spell is, it actually is kinda vague on where the specified AC defends from. The fact that the character can add his dex bonus to the AC, and gets a +1 to saving throws vs all effects is pretty significant.

A light armored fighter mage is a pretty significant threat. Especially at higher levels.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Treebore]

Aramis wrote:
However, attributing only 1 classes level to the save is also somewhat unfair. As you say, it needs to be based off of total XPs somehow. The tricky bit in trying to attribute a single level to the multi classer is what XP chart to use. The single class chart you use would have to change depending on what mix of classes you belonged to

I am confident that some of the chart expert people like serleran would have no trouble coming up with something

Its easy enough to do. Use the XP chart of the highest class that the PC is going by. So if they are a Wizard-Thief go by the Wizard XP chart. Total up their XP values for both classes and see where it puts them on the chart as if they were a single classed wizard. That is the level they get to add to level based saves and checks.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Aramis]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I dunno, as ambiguously worded as the spell is, it actually is kinda vague on where the specified AC defends from. The fact that the character can add his dex bonus to the AC, and gets a +1 to saving throws vs all effects is pretty significant.

A light armored fighter mage is a pretty significant threat. Especially at higher levels.

From the PH, p. 93 Shield

"protecting him from frontal attacks"..."attacks from the side or rear are unaffected"

This follows from the 1e version of the spell, which is defined similarly, and also has levels of protection from various attacks, and immunity from magic missiles. Even has one of those nifty, evocative 1e mini drawings on the page.

I agree the stacking of DEX and +1 to saves are very nice, and the duration is good too.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[gideon_thorne]

Aramis wrote:
From the PH, p. 93 Shield

"protecting him from frontal attacks"..."attacks from the side or rear are unaffected"

This follows from the 1e version of the spell, which is defined similarly, and also has levels of protection from various attacks, and immunity from magic missiles. Even has one of those nifty, evocative 1e mini drawings on the page.

I agree the stacking of DEX and +1 to saves are very nice, and the duration is good too.

Not really that much different than a shield an armor, if you think about it.

Solution, fight with your back to a wall or have a buddy behind you.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Aramis]

Treebore wrote:
Lets not forget the save issue. Why should a multiclass character get better saves than a single class character, when they both have the XP's?

.

I just thought of something interesting about this issue. If you think that is outrageous, would you think a single classed character with the same XPs getting a +4 level bonus is equally wrong (can't put a question mark there because of this weird keyboard thing)

A 10th level Paladin has 700,000 which is equivalent to a 14th level thief I think (math again! ). So the thief has a +4 bonus, the dirty dog. Shouldn't a holy paladin have better saves than that misbegotten scum with the same XPs

So this is not just an issue with Gygax's multi classing rules. However, those rules have a blanket one half second class levels for anyone, even if you are a paladin wizard multi class (if there is such a thing). So there is something wrong there.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[gideon_thorne]

Aramis wrote:
A 10th level Paladin has 700,000 which is equivalent to a 14th level thief I think (math again! ). So the thief has a +4 bonus, the dirty dog. Shouldn't a holy paladin have better saves than that misbegotten scum with the same XPs.

No. Because the paladin already has a load of ass kickery inherent in the class. At first level, paladin's have abilities that make them more bad ass than a thief.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[moriarty777]

However, was does the higher level rogue truly gain? A better chance on saves (those lucky bastards) and skills associated with the class. Compared to all the various classes, this is what to rogue 'excels' in.

I think that for purposes of balance, this works well enough.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Aramis]

You are both absolutely right. The " Shouldn't a holy paladin have better saves than that misbegotten scum with the same XPs" was meant ironically. Part of the XP cost for the Paladin is all those nifty abilities. Rogues get more level for their XPs, which has all sorts of follow on benefits in terms of saves and skill checks and HD etc.

I was more trying to show that one aspect of the Gygaxian multiclass system that some take issue with is the same XPs do not equate to the same bonus on saves and checks. And they are right, there is a problem there. But this issue also occurs (in a completely legitimate way) between for example single class Paladins and single class Rogues as well.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[Lord Dynel]

In reply to Tenser, way back at the beginning of the thread, I allow humans and demihumans to multiclass - there are no dual-classing.

Serleran - the -25% XP for mulitclassers work out well without mutiny? Let me know how you managed to pull that one off.
You guys are hitting on my concerns a lot - can multiclassing become a problem if the intent is to min/max? By the looks of it, it can. Interesting that it's looking like spellcasters benefit more. I'm not sure any of my players would multiclass just to gain advantage, but one can never be certain. Any problems I foresee are going to arise (I think) when the player of a single class starts complaining that a multiclass character is doing the job almost as well. In the end, I see an XP penalty being the balancing factor - I'm just trying to figure out if there's any possible recourse for the penalty and, if so, what could be done in its stead.

As far as the rogue having a higher save bonus than a paladin for the same amount of experience - I think that's easy to explain. The rogue has an easier time "getting better" than the paladin has in his line of work. Thus, given the same amount of time on the job, so to speak, the rogue is a better rogue that the paladin is at being a paladin. It's just one of those things.

[gideon_thorne]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I'm not sure any of my players would multiclass just to gain advantage, but one can never be certain.

See this is the deal right here. Every time these sorts of discussions come up, the answer remains invariably the same. No rule ever invented can fix a broke player.

If you've got good people just wanting a good time in an rpg, there is no such thing as a broken rule. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Quote:
Serleran - the -25% XP for mulitclassers work out well without mutiny? Let me know how you managed to pull that one off.

Oh, easy. I said: "If we implement a rule like this, it will be this way, or not at all -- make your choice."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Aramis]

gideon_thorne wrote:
See this is the deal right here. Every time these sorts of discussions come up, the answer remains invariably the same. No rule ever invented can fix a broke player.

If you've got good people just wanting a good time in an rpg, there is no such thing as a broken rule. ^_^

Exactly. So many of these "balance" issues are resolved by focusing on fun rather than stats.

So long as the single classers are not sitting on their hands while Willie Wonder Classes gets to fight, cast spells, backstab a villain, then heal the rescued princess, it should be good.
_________________
"Kids, you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try"

Homer Simpson

[serleran]

Except that is the point of multiclassing: to be able to do all that (if applicable) so, as in many things, it is not the Castle Keeper, but the player who has to wiling to engage the game. The Castle Keeper simply needs to not discourage it.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[anonymous]

The whole point of multi-classing is to be like a Holmes Basic elf...

[Lord Dynel]

gideon_thorne wrote:
See this is the deal right here. Every time these sorts of discussions come up, the answer remains invariably the same. No rule ever invented can fix a broke player.

If you've got good people just wanting a good time in an rpg, there is no such thing as a broken rule. ^_^

I agree with that. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, when I shouldn't be. I don't think any player in my group would multiclass just to gain some type of advantage. It's just that I feel that there is an advantage with multiclassing and I fear that my players will recognize it as well. But you're right - I have good players in my group, so I probably shouldn't worry about it. I still think an XP penalty is in order - I'm not sure it'll be 25%, but 10% was probably a little too small.

[gideon_thorne]

Lord Dynel wrote:
I agree with that. Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, when I shouldn't be. I don't think any player in my group would multiclass just to gain some type of advantage. It's just that I feel that there is an advantage with multiclassing and I fear that my players will recognize it as well. But you're right - I have good players in my group, so I probably shouldn't worry about it. I still think an XP penalty is in order - I'm not sure it'll be 25%, but 10% was probably a little too small.

See, I'd do this. I'd ask the player why they want to multi class? Do they just want to 'play a character with two or more classes', or do they have an interesting rationale or back story as to why their character has two classes.

I'm inclined to cut players a lot of slack if they give me a good reason (ie a good story) why their character has the multitude of classes they do.

Shows me that the player is interested in developing an interesting character for its own sake, and not a mechanical reason. And thus, the game master has a lot less to worry about cause its generally clear in that case a player is not a mechanics hound or a rules lawyer.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Jonathan of White Haven]

gideon_thorne wrote:
See, I'd do this. I'd ask the player why they want to multi class? Do they just want to 'play a character with two or more classes', or do they have an interesting rationale or back story as to why their character has two classes.

I'm inclined to cut players a lot of slack if they give me a good reason (ie a good story) why their character has the multitude of classes they do.

I think there's always a small part of a player running a multiclass PC that looks towards maximizing or gaining a bit of an advantage over running a single-class PC. But a good player has a good reason for making that choice in the first place.

My situation (as a player) may or may not be typical. I was joining an established group of PCs, and took a look at the classes that were already in play. It appeared to me that an extra fighter-type would come in handy, while both an additional arcane *and* divine spellcaster would be useful to the group. I chose to generate a Cavalier (at the time, now a Knight) as well as a Wizard/Cleric. I worked up the backstories for both characters prior to the beginning of play, and introduced both at slightly different times (coordinated with the GM's help.) While one of the players was (and remains) a bit resentful that my characters entered play at 4th and 3rd/3rd level, respectively (while the other PCs were already 5th or 6th level), they've integrated well into the existing campaign. (Interestingly, the resentful player tends to be a min/maxer. Go fig.)

gideon_thorne wrote:
Shows me that the player is interested in developing an interesting character for its own sake, and not a mechanical reason. And thus, the game master has a lot less to worry about cause its generally clear in that case a player is not a mechanics hound or a rules lawyer.

As a CK, I have a limited number of players (three). In order to have a good mix of useful and interesting classes for the party, three of the six PCs are multiclassed-- a Rogue/Wizard, a Ranger/Assassin (an interesting combination in itself), and a Monk/Illusionist. I didn't *require* this, but I did strongly suggest it. The other three characters are a Knight, a Cleric, and a Druid. None of the multiclass combinations were chosen, to my knowledge, in order to unfairly maximixe the potential of the given PC. However, the classes chosen tend to blend well and reinforce each other to some extent. I think the players involved chose rather well.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[gideon_thorne]

Jonathan of White Haven wrote:
I think there's always a small part of a player running a multiclass PC that looks towards maximizing or gaining a bit of an advantage over running a single-class PC. But a good player has a good reason for making that choice in the first place.

This is true. I've played just about every kind of race/class/multi class combination there is over the last 25 + years, usually just out of curiosity to see what I could do with various combinations.

Course, in that time I discovered the kind of characters I like to play. And its rare that they are heavy hitter fighter types. I tend to go for a more subtle skills, stealth, and nifty bag of tricks approach.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Jonathan of White Haven]

gideon_thorne wrote:
This is true. I've played just about every kind of race/class/multi class combination there is over the last 25 + years, usually just out of curiosity to see what I could do with various combinations.

I've played just about every character class but Paladin, Monk, and Druid. Oh, toss in Bards and Barbarians. I never really liked either. I think the only races I haven't played are Gnomes and Half-Orcs. I also did play a Kzin. But that's another story altogether...

Hmm. A Half-Orc Paladin. I'm sure it's been done, but it does sound intriguing. Or perhaps a Gnome Druid...

Quote:
Course, in that time I discovered the kind of characters I like to play. And its rare that they are heavy hitter fighter types. I tend to go for a more subtle skills, stealth, and nifty bag of tricks approach.

While I've always had meat-shield types in my character inventory, I've also played my share of Thieves/Rogues, Clerics, and Wizards. Some of my favorites have been Rogues (including a Jewish Dwarf, whose twin brother was played by skerns--they were always a hoot; an Alphonse/Gaston act) or some kind of Rogue/spellcaster combo. Assassin/Wizard was also fun. And deadly. And then, there was the Kzin. He was triple-classed (Fighter/Wizard/Cleric) and hell on wheels. But fire was his nemesis, along with constantly being taunted by humanoids ("Here. Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!" "Kittums want some catnip?")

NPC townspeople usually just got batted around (no pun intended), while the monster types were silenced with great prejudice. And then eaten.

Raw.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath