Multi-classing?

[Bowbe]

Sorry Tyron if my inclusion (or lack there of) of home "Bowbefied" multi classing and "generic craftsperson" stuff got your t shirt caught in the propeller. Not the intent.

I had a really really cool thing pecked out on my crackberry to answer all of your questions and concerns but accidentally fat fingered the wrong button and lost it all. So I will summarize the really cool and clever stuff I had typed out there here.

Basically, a recap: If you have thoroughly delved into the DB series of products you will see that in several locations I include such things as I refer to "Roadhouse Rules" these may be included in the text of a character's "stat block" or as a sidebar or whatever. Basically they explain a house rule or alternative rule that I use and then share out with the awesome and obviously tasteful patrons of my style of C&C.

Here are a couple of things to note. 1st: Is it bad that the "artisan" is not described in one of these sidebars? Probably. So that leads to the question of "why the F wasn't it then?" Answer: It probably got left out for space or I didn't think it was "that big a deal" meaning that as others have posted the artisan was to be "prime" in their specific crafting ability.

To give you a more succint write up it would be something like this: Artisan. Artisans excell in crafting (objects) ranging from foodstuffs to durable goods. Each level in artisan grants them +1 to their ability to craft and create items. They are otherwise normal representatives of their particular race. Ect. Ect. Ect. Two problems. 1: stuff like that is just plain boring. A guy being good at crafting stuff isnt necessarily going to bring about an evolution in gaming and adventurers aren't really supposed to fit the bill of "crafters" no matter what the F'ing rules in 3ed had to say. Adventurers adventure. Retired adventurers and "common folk" make shit. I got so annoyed with the constant crafting in 3e groups that I wanted to spit. The fact that 4e put all the magic items into the PHB for easy crafting purposes pretty much put the spike in the coffin as far as the direction of that venerable system has gone in my eyes.

The problem with the "common folk" making stuff to me in 1e, 2e or C&C is this... by the book common folk of ALL playable races have a better attack matrix, armor class, and saves than a freakin wizard, assassin, or rogue have ever had! Add a couple "levels" to a M&T "race" and you got kind of a badass compared to most of the PC classes of comperable hit dice!

I've never really liked that either, which is why I am very much a "Roadhouse rules" type of guy.

Secondly, Gary's (Bless him) system in the Yggsburg stuff never really worked for me either. It was too punitive to make for an enjoyable game in my humble opinion, and most people around here are pretty familiar with my reasonings on why that was.

Maybe I will do something up for it in a crusader article and will now HAVE to include it as additional material in the Haunted Highlands: Karbosk box set... which is where the multi classing rules Ed helped me formulate are going to be. So yes Moriarty your' going to get it Bowbe's way which of course is the best way according to me ! And yes It's all a bloody scam to sell the Box set! Muah hah hah... Muaaah Hah hah!

Funny that the rules are already written but haven't made it into print format for a variety of reasons. One statement I put into the multi class rules that Ed and I came up with was the fact that If "I" can make NPCs with multiple classes to fit a role in my adventure, then the characters "should" be able to do so too even if I don't like it and it's a bad idea that is ultimately character weakening rather than character strengthening. Problem with a weak character in a TEAM based game is it makes for a weak adventuring party which often translates to a DEAD party. These weak characters DO make cool NPCs tho.

Think back on your own past gaming experiences. If you got TPKed 25 years ago was it because you lacked some component (a party member that fiddled too much with a variety of classes vs. sticking with one good one?) I bet it was. PCs kill each other through bad choices all the time but that doesn't mean that the choices shouldnt be on the table!

By the way...When I started developing the DB series I was strictly limited to 24 pages! I've had to fight tooth and nail to get the page count up to the 32 and 36 page levels we are at now. Ask Steve! You have probably noted that all the books in the series are thoroughly PACKED with content so much that I begged for longer books to get all the stuff in there! Peter re-arranged stuff, and shrunk font, kerning and all sorts of important graphic design type stuff to get it in there. Less art ect!

In some instances they were overpacked to the point that even as a 32 pager stuff still had to get cut back! I'm not getting paid any more for a longer book than one of the 24 pagers. I agreed to that because certain content just HAD to be in books like DB4 and DB 5 and the upcoming black libram regardless of the length. In other words you guys are getting on average 8-12 pages free because the product price didnt change. I'm not trying to get a halo here lol, i'm just saying sorry if the rule you were looking for didnt make it into the book. Steve tells me to write with more brevity so I don't screw myself out of money! Hahah. Production decisions have to be made and up till now it hasn't been that big of a deal. Soon all that will change! I promise.

Anyhow, back to working on the Box set, and of course my other pet projects I've got such a cool monniker for these other books woot woot!

PS.

If anyone sees Shane G about, have him get after me!

Later

C.

[DangerDwarf]

Dammit. Every time the DB box set even gets mentioned I somehow want it even more. I didn't think that was possible to.

Steve needs to bring on the Black Libram too. The CKG can wait.

[Lord Tryon]

Thanks for the update. I will have to get that boxed set. I do really like the adventures which was what caused my concern as I know my players. Some are younger and won't understand some things without explaination and it is those guys especially my one son who is trying to learn to be CK would really throw. Then on the otherhand I have some really experienced players who will if I do not watch everything will take advatage of every loophole in a game.

So I read with the eye to try and defuse any problems I foresee coming and sometimes even potential problems as I play with a wide variety of people as well as run adventures at times at local mincon/game groups where who knows what type of players will be walking in.

So again thanks for the reply and am looking forward to what lies ahead.

[gideon_thorne]

Lord Tryon wrote:
Then on the otherhand I have some really experienced players who will if I do not watch everything will take advantage of every loophole in a game.

Bwahahahaha I'm good at that.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[csperkins1970]

Lord Tryon wrote:
I just recently bought a ton of C&C modules and in them I noticed a few Mutli-classed individuals. Where are the rules for multi-classing? The only ones I am familiar with are the ones in the Crusader but that is more of a hybrid class than true mutli-classing.

I realize that I'm coming in REALLY late on this one and that what I'm suggesting isn't at all official but here goes:

Use AD&D-style multiclassing, with a few tweaks/simplifications, and all works out pretty well.

1] Limit multiclassing to 2 classes.

2] You must have the Prime for each class you choose and must meet each class's alignment restrictions.

3] Divide all earned XP between these 2 classes.

4] Limit armor to the most restrictive of the 2 classes.

5] Allow the best weapon selection of the 2 classes.

6] Average the hit die type of both classes when advancing in level. A fighter 3 /rogue 4 would have [3d10/2]+[4d6/2] hit points. Apply the full CON bonus ONCE per level achieved. Remember, that a multiclassed character does not add his class levels together when determining what level he has achieved... he looks at his highest level in 1 of his 2 classes. As such a fighter 3/rogue 4 would have has gotten to 4th level, so he'd have his [CON mod x 4] added to his Hit Points.

7] Do NOT add the levels in each class together in order to figure out your level bonus to saves and attribute checks. Instead use the highest level attained to determine these bonuses. A fighter 3 /rogue 4 would get a +4 bonus to saves and attribute checks.

8] Use the best BtH bonus of the 2 classes... you don't add the BtH bonuses of both classes together. A fighter 3 /rogue 4 would have a +3 BtH.

9] When using a class ability or feature, use your level in that specific class to determine your level bonus. A fighter 5 /wizard 5 would cast spells as a 5th level wizard.

It has worked perfectly for me and my players and, hopefully, it works out for you (whether you take my advice or not).

[Bowbe]

Quote:
7] Do NOT add the levels in each class together in order to figure out your level bonus to saves and attribute checks. Instead use the highest level attained to determine these bonuses. A fighter 3 /rogue 4 would get a +4 bonus to saves and attribute checks.

8] Use the best BtH bonus of the 2 classes... you don't add the BtH bonuses of both classes together. A fighter 3 /rogue 4 would have a +3 BtH.

I disagree/partially disagree with these two points for what i feel are pretty good game designerly and just good gaming fun reasons. You don't get "less good" at making a saves since saves are based on your primes and total hit dice. Just because you have wonky hit dice with some big dice and some small ones makes no difference. Total hit dice is the way I interpret the rule and is the way it works with monsters. (For more on hit dice and characters see the bottom of this post)

Second, you don't get "less good" at attacking stuff just because you get an attack bonus from a different class. You don't learn to fight worse. If your other class were to give you a bonus to hit when you level up in it then so be it. The trick is don't tie your mind to the tables and charts. Its pretty obvious if a particular level gives you a +1 to hit you would add that to your overall BtH. In C&C those relative min max bonuses people fear are really only at the very lowest levels and even out or become a penalty to class mixers when they reach their mid fives and onwards.

I understand the thinking behind "not" giving the peeps who multi class those additional buffs or bonuses. It comes from a place where most of us have been (AKA burned by min-maxing munchkins! (Cough Cough 3ed Cough Cough)) at some point in time. Really tho, it isn't "Oldschool" to punish players for wanting to try something different no matter what the various wankers and talking heads on a hundred different message boards and a thousand different game tables would have you believe.

People have somehow been indoctrinated to think that way and I really have a hard time swallowing that pill. (Haha.. No CS im not talking about you I'm talking in general here! Please take no offense my friend you just brought up something that really sticks in my craw!)

It used to be oldschool to REWARD people for being creative, trying different stuff, and using their melon to solve problems! It's never been oldschool to punish players so long as everyone is having fun. So called old school players who bitch and moan about rules and fairness really get my kilt in a twist. I've got other feelings on the matter but it would probably make a better angry gamer article! Haha! Lets make other games take that straight jacket rules banner for a while. A quick search of other game based mssg boards will show you exactly what I am talking bout!

Trust me, the amount of XP punishment a character takes to gain a level the honest way in C&C for leveling up in ONE class let alone multiple classes (LOLZ) is often enough of a disadvantage to keep a multi classer on par or actually mildly weaker then their single class cohorts.

The great "equalizer" of our favored style of RPG has always been that rogues and fighters grow up in levels faster than all other classes and that wizards crawl the slowest and have the weakest HP but do the most damage if you can "survive them" to about 6th level and not have a GM "return the favor" and hit you with the same dice of fireballs your hitting them with (hence major and minor globes of invulnerability had to be created to "balance" the game... a problem that probaby could be solved another way. Tilt your glasses a little to the left when you re-read elder editions of "the Game" and you can see exactly where one spell or magic item was invented to counter some other item or ability that a creative person had come up with to trump another GM or Player. Amulet of Shielding? I think you get me!

I've always been in favor of giving everyone a D8 HD and then award HP bonus based on character class. +0 for wizards, +1 Clerics/Rogues/Assassins, +2 Druids, +3 Fighters, Paladins, Knights, Rangers and +4 for monks/barbarians.

Add this in addition to Con bonus and you end up with more robust characters and a bit different game dynamic with more HP, less pauses in the action and so on. Of course I've only playtested this and wouldn't include it into a "for print" publication because to be honest It's a house rule that appeals more to my style of rules judging.

You could probably make it more interesting by adjusting those hit dice based on whatever humanoid critter someone wants to play in a game as well. You know, the kids that want to play a goblin get a d6, the ones who want to be a kobold get a d4. Ones who want to play an ogre get a d10. Again all fun table rules that don't necessarily need to be game canon but are fun to talk about in message boards.

Anyhow, going out to play in the blizzard with a very excited 6 year old!

Laters!

C.

[csperkins1970]

Bowbe wrote:
I disagree/partially disagree with these two points for what i feel are pretty good game designerly and just good gaming fun reasons. You don't get "less good" at making a saves since saves are based on your primes and total hit dice. Just because you have wonky hit dice with some big dice and some small ones makes no difference. Total hit dice is the way I interpret the rule and is the way it works with monsters. (For more on hit dice and characters see the bottom of this post)

You gotta trust me, multiclassed guys (as done in AD&D and adapted for C&C in my post above) are not gimped in any way.

Because of the way that levels and XP work, a multiclassed character will typically be only 1-to-2 levels behind his single-classed associates and gets the class abilities of both classes to make up for this lagging behind.

I'll provide a quick example:

A fighter with 15,000 XP is 5th level with a +5 BtH, 5d10+[CON mod x5] hit points, and a +5 to all saves. He has the Weapon Specialization & Combat Dominance abilities.

A fighter/rogue with 7,500/7,500 XP is a 3rd level fighter/4th level rogue with a +3 BtH, [3d10/2] + [4d6/2] + [CON Mod x4] hit points, and a +4 to all saves. He has the Weapon Specialization of fighters. He also has the Back attack, cant, climb, decipher script, hide, listen, move silently, open lock, pick pockets, traps and sneak attack abilities of rogues.

A fighter/wizard with 7,500/7,500 XP is a 3rd level fighter/3rd level wizard with a +3 BtH, [3d10/2] + [3d6/4] + [CON Mod x3] hit points, and a +3 to all saves. He has the Weapon Specialization of fighters. He also has wizard spells (4 0-level, 3 1st level and 1 2nd-level) to help him "get by".

I'd say those are fair trade-offs.

The same characters, at 25,000 XP would be:

A 5th level fighter

A 4th level fighter/5th level rogue

A 4th level fighter/4th level wizard

The levels, as you see, jockey between a 1 and 2 level difference overall. Not too bad and certainly not a punishment for being creative.

Adding up the level bonuses to saves and adding the BtH bonuses would make multiclass characters obscenely overpowered... not just in the hands of munchkins but in the hands of anyone who plays them.

[Treebore]

Getting +2 to BtH just because you get a +1 from being a fighter and a +1 from being a thief is redudant. Your not learning any better tricks or t4echniques as a rogue than you are as a fighter, so to me your getting a +2 BtH because you took the same college class twice. Nope, not in my games.

As for adding both class levels to your saves, same idea, they are not getting twice the benefit for taking the same classes twice. Not to mention they get way better saves at lower levels than a single class PC with the same XP, so I'm with Perkins all the way.

So why do they still need to pay the full XP's of the second class if they don't get the BtH and level benefits? Inherent penalty for splitting your attention between separate goals. Plus it encourages a single class progression over multiple classes. If you don't like the cost benefit analysis then don't multi class, I don't want you to in the first place. I think the Assassin/Mage, Bard/MAge, Druid/Mage, and Mage/Thief in my games like being multi classed despite how I have them doing it.
_________________
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

[Bowbe]

Haha, not disagreeing with you at all. Wasn't saying you add the BtH together . Just saying that additional +1 BtH improvement as you level up in an alternate class isnt a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. You don't get "less good" to hit just because one of your other classes teaches you how to hit a different way. Experience in combat is experience in combat and fighting skills regardless of the class. The exceptions are in such things as "weapon specialization" or combat marauder, sneak attack and all that stuff.

I do agree on not adding the classes together for SIEGE checks. Only in what checks that class depends on for that particular situation. Also agree with the basic armor limiations. Folks will always want their wizard in full plate with a greatsword fantasy fulfilled. Oh well somebody is always unhappy haha!

The fly in the ointment has always been what to do to get that first level in another class to begin with and for many people the AD&D method just really isn't the "best" one. Going that whole level without being able to use any of your original powers or abilities always struck a lot of people as just silly. (Myself included) when for whatever reason demi humans could not. THen again the whole class level limit to demihumans seemed crazy as well. Games grow, rules grow, players grow (out and old haha!) its all good!

C.

[Treebore]

Bowbe wrote:
Haha, not disagreeing with you at all. Wasn't saying you add the BtH together . Just saying that additional +1 BtH improvement as you level up in an alternate class isnt a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned. You don't get "less good" to hit just because one of your other classes teaches you how to hit a different way. Experience in combat is experience in combat and fighting skills regardless of the class. The exceptions are in such things as "weapon specialization" or combat marauder, sneak attack and all that stuff.

I do agree on not adding the classes together for SIEGE checks. Only in what checks that class depends on for that particular situation. Also agree with the basic armor limiations. Folks will always want their wizard in full plate with a greatsword fantasy fulfilled. Oh well somebody is always unhappy haha!

The fly in the ointment has always been what to do to get that first level in another class to begin with and for many people the AD&D method just really isn't the "best" one. Going that whole level without being able to use any of your original powers or abilities always struck a lot of people as just silly. (Myself included) when for whatever reason demi humans could not. THen again the whole class level limit to demihumans seemed crazy as well. Games grow, rules grow, players grow (out and old haha!) its all good!

C.

I freeze their original class, all XP's go to the new class. Then when the new class catches up to the old class they are then evenly split from then on, and they have to be split. Not perfect, but it works, penalizes them by not allowing the old class to advance at all until the new class catches up. Then they remain penalized because they have to keep advancing both classes, even if they don't want to.

Like I said, I don't want them to multi-, Dual- class in the first place. However my players eem to like their PC's very much. The Druid-Mage (Runemark) is 15/13, and very happy with how powerful she is, despite not getting to add her levels together or to add he BtH's together, and she only gets the d8 from being a Druid. The MAge/Thief is something like (not looking at PC sheet here) 14th level mage and 16th level thief, and she is seriously bad ass in a stealthy kill you in your sleep kind of way, and still masters the battlefield like any 14th level Mage can.

So players can whine all they want about how unfair they think I am being, but I KNOW how bad ass they are going to be. So they can cry, and I am going to ignore them.
_________________
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

[csperkins1970]

I agree with NOT allowing multiclassed characters to also dual-class. Multiclassing, once chosen, determines what 2 classes you'll advance in for your adventuring career.

I do allow dual-classing (I call it split-classing in my game), which amounts to 3rd edition-style multiclassing, buit not in conjunction with old-school multiclassing. If you are a fighter 4 who wants to advance in a level of rogue, you'd stop progressing as a fighter once you hit 8,501 XP (what it takes to reach 4th level as a fighter). To gain your 1st level in rogue, you'd have to accumulate 6,001 XP (what it would take to reach 4th level as a rogue).

Once you reached 14,501 XP (8,501 in fighter and 6,001 in rogue) you'd be a fighter 4/ rogue 1... and effectively be a 5th level character. You'd have a +5 level bonus to all saves and would total your BtH bonuses for each class. For specific class abilities, you'd use your level bonus for THAT specific class.

[Bowbe]

Treebore wrote:
Getting +2 to BtH just because you get a +1 from being a fighter and a +1 from being a thief is redudant. Your not learning any better tricks or t4echniques as a rogue than you are as a fighter, so to me your getting a +2 BtH because you took the same college class twice. Nope, not in my games.

Not what I am saying as usual lol. Ok. 1 level of rogue does not get you a +1 BtH in the first place. Only fighters get a +1 BtH at first level. Taking a single level of something other than fighter isn't getting you a +1 to hit. You have to take multiple levels to get any bonus, and then multiple levels of that additional class to get even more bonus.

I look at the actual progression chart here. Rogues are +1 BtH at level 2 and remain +1 BtH until level 5. If a character were 6th level fighter and 5th level rogue I would give them the +8 BtH. Sorry I figure they earned it. It just isnt that big a deal to me. Over the long haul it all ends up about the same. Seems as we digest rules here we get caught up on whats happening in the midrange of low level characters. Evidently a problem 4e "fixed" by making the game boring so that there is virtually no difference between a 1st level guy and a 30th other than the "name" that they call the crap they can do and the size of the bonus you add.

It seems like the way you are trying to read my math is that every +1 on the chart is an additional +1 cumulate to hit which if it were the case would give joe full plate a +15 to hit at 5th level and I think we can all agree that isn't the case.
still all is well and good! I like this kind of convo because it makes things better. Thats why I include such optional rules in my stuff. Not everyone sits and plots this stuff out all day long, or has time to develop their own system or even thinks of everything. All of the various "ways" of doing it are virtually identical with little tweaks here/there to appeal to a game keepers own sensibilities of how it "should work".

C.

[Treebore]

Yeah, I have only had 2 players do a true "multi class", a Assassin/Mage and the Druid/Mage-Runemark, everyone else single classed to a certain level, and then asked to pick up a second class.

I don't allow multi or dual classing in similar classes, except Druid and Cleric, because I think there is enough of a difference. When they want to become a different class, like go from fighter or knight to Paladin, for an example, I allow them to retrain to that class. IE a straight switch, based on XP, not level, so if you switch from fighter to Paladin you may be a 5th level fighter, but you may become a 4th level Paladin, depending on where their XP total puts them.

I have never had a Paladin fall, permanently, they always atoned, but if they ever do I think I will force them to go from 7th level Paladin to 7th level Fighter, even if their XP's would make them a 8th level fighter.

I did have a player turn their back on being a cleric forever once, I think if I have to deal with that in C&C I'll allow them to become a fighter at whatever their Cleric BtH was. So if they are a 7th level cleric they would become a third level fighter. Which I like, because I look at the level/xp loss as further punishment from the gods from daring to not only abandon your original faith, but your complete faith.

Then the player could continue to advance in Fighter, or switch to a new 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

[Hrolfgar]

csperkins1970 wrote:
Adding up the level bonuses to saves and adding the BtH bonuses would make multiclass characters obscenely overpowered... not just in the hands of munchkins but in the hands of anyone who plays them.

I gotta agree with that

Bowbe wrote:
I look at the actual progression chart here. Rogues are +1 BtH at level 2 and remain +1 BtH until level 5. If a character were 6th level fighter and 5th level rogue I would give them the +8 BtH

This would be a dual class character I assume or some other method of uneven advancement.

Compare that to a single class character of the same XP

52,002 without a penalty, 53,253 with a penalty

Either way a Fighter is still only 6th level, +6 BtH

A Rogue would be 7th lvl , only +2 BtH

Way too big of an advantage IMO.

But I'm use the same rules as csperkins1970 posted. In fact i think I swiped them for my use from a previous thread on this topic.

[Hrolfgar]

Bowbe wrote:
I've always been in favor of giving everyone a D8 HD and then award HP bonus based on character class. +0 for wizards, +1 Clerics/Rogues/Assassins, +2 Druids, +3 Fighters, Paladins, Knights, Rangers and +4 for monks/barbarians.

I'm like this idea, might use this at first level sometime.

[artikid]

I think that csperkins1970 has it "right".

My 2 copper pieces

artikid

[Lord Dynel]

I thought at first that the adding the attack bonuses and levels for saves was the way to go. After this discussion, however, it seems that only using the best attack bonus and highest level for saves would be a good balancing factor (not that I'm a big proponent of balance prevalent in current gaming). The fighting techniques the rogue learns at 5th level are the same techniques the fighter learned at 2nd level - IMHO they're maneuvers and combat skills the fighter learned how to do long before. As someone earlier put it (Tree, maybe?) they're kind of redundant. And I kind of see saves the same way, but more so a plain mechanical decision, considering the example csperkins brought up earlier:

Quote:
The same characters, at 25,000 XP would be:

A 5th level fighter

A 4th level fighter/5th level rogue

A 4th level fighter/4th level wizard

I can't see the multiclass characters being that much better at saves than the single class would be. The saves and attacks the multiclass would have wouldn't be much lower than a level or so lower, at best, and two or so at worst. I've also instituted a 10% and 15% penalty to earned experience for two and three class multiclass characters, respectively. I've always thought that juggling two (or three) classes And, I've always use the "best weapons" and "worst armor" provisions...they just make sense.

All that said, I can't wait to see Casey's and the CKG options for multiclassing!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

[artikid]

Lord Dynel wrote:
All that said, I can't wait to see Casey's and the CKG options for multiclassing!

Ditto

artikid

[moriarty777]

Rigon wrote:
And that sucks.

R-

I've brought this up recently and it is my hope to see the C&CS society putting out a revised and 'excised' version of this document. That way, there could be a 'limited' support of the style of multiclassing and skill system that might have appeared in some of the past Yggsburgh/Zagyg material for C&C.

We see what happens in the next little while.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

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

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
I've brought this up recently and it is my hope to see the C&CS society putting out a revised and 'excised' version of this document. That way, there could be a 'limited' support of the style of multiclassing and skill system that might have appeared in some of the past Yggsburgh/Zagyg material for C&C.

We see what happens in the next little while.
M

I'm afraid that the C&CS, being associated with TLG, likely can't do that either.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[csperkins1970]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I'm afraid that the C&CS, being associated with TLG, likely can't do that either.

The simple answer to this dilemma is that official rules SHOULD be added to the PHB. It makes perfect sense that a rulebook, and not a book of optional rules, should have the rules for multiclassing within it.

The CKG could have added options for multiclassing and split-classing but it really stands out as the most glaring omission from the PHB.

As a fan of the game I offer this respectfully, as constructive criticism.

[DangerDwarf]

I disagree that they should be included in the PHB. I don't allow multi-classing in my games. Only rarely did in AD&D as well. It isn't required for a complete game.

CKG is where I feel it belongs.

[moriarty777]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I'm afraid that the C&CS, being associated with TLG, likely can't do that either.

If we were talking about material which is part of Trigee IP, then I agree. However, writing about the mechanics behind this and considering what's covered by the OGL and what TLG gives the Society permission to use. I don't think there should be an issue. In essence, it would all have to be re-written and every single reference of Trigee's IP would be eliminated.

Unless you are saying that things like Multiclassing and Dualclassing is part of the IP. Then I'm really up shit creek. However, I don't pretend to be an expert and all these little details are the things that still need to be checked and verified.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

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

[csperkins1970]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I disagree that they should be included in the PHB. I don't allow multi-classing in my games. Only rarely did in AD&D as well. It isn't required for a complete game.

CKG is where I feel it belongs.

I, like a lot of others, use C&C to emulate AD&D (but in a streamlined and fine-tooled fashion that benefits from years of gameplay and revisions). Adding the rules to the PHB would make the game more attractive to those looking to use C&C in this way. As a DM (CK) you can always opt to not allow rules... even if they are official.

My opinion (for what little it's worth) is that the inclusion of those rules would do more good than ill for the game.

[serleran]

Unless C&C is not meant to be a clone and a game of its own.

This is another cyclical argument.

Had Steve and Davis wanted to include rules in the PHB, they would have -- they had at least 12 to choose from. They did not. Therefore, it was not considered essential. Maybe they have changed their mind on it -- but, it doesn't seem to be so.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[DangerDwarf]

Also, if you want C&C as an emulation of AD&D, then the multi-classing rules will still be present in the "3 core set" by their inclusion into the CKG.

[csperkins1970]

serleran wrote:
Unless C&C is not meant to be a clone and a game of its own.

This is another cyclical argument.

Had Steve and Davis wanted to include rules in the PHB, they would have -- they had at least 12 to choose from. They did not. Therefore, it was not considered essential. Maybe they have changed their mind on it -- but, it doesn't seem to be so.

It's not a clone but, if you think it doesn't benefit from its association with Gary Gygax and D&D, then you're not seeing things as they are. At the same time, I never said it was (or should be) an AD&D clone, so don't put words in my mouth.

C&C is my game of choice because it allows me to "play D&D" with the best ruleset out there.

I'd love to see this game grow and attract new players... while respecting its roots. I think it can do both.

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
If we were talking about material which is part of Trigee IP, then I agree. However, writing about the mechanics behind this and considering what's covered by the OGL and what TLG gives the Society permission to use. I don't think there should be an issue. In essence, it would all have to be re-written and every single reference of Trigee's IP would be eliminated.

Unless you are saying that things like Multiclassing and Dualclassing is part of the IP. Then I'm really up shit creek. However, I don't pretend to be an expert and all these little details are the things that still need to be checked and verified.
M

Well, since you so aptly put the ball back in Steve's court, I can say with some assurance that he's not going to challenge GG on this matter.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[csperkins1970]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Also, if you want C&C as an emulation of AD&D, then the multi-classing rules will still be present in the "3 core set" by their inclusion into the CKG.

Unfortunately, the CKG is being billed as a book of options rather than as a rulebook.

I'd find it more useful if it presented new, official rules alongside added, optional rules.

[gideon_thorne]

csperkins1970 wrote:
It's not a clone but, if you think it doesn't benefit from its association with Gary Gygax and D&D, then you're not seeing things as they are.

*chuckles* C&C stands rather amply on its own actually. The buzz on the net is a far cry from 'how things are' in the general market.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley