Multi-classing?

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:54 pm

I agree with DD about the multiclassing rules not being needed to be a complete game. But I view these rules the same way I view 3 or 4 of the classes, a couple of the races, and handfuls of monsters and magical items - they aren't required for the rules to be complete, either, but their inclusion makes the game richer - just like multiclassing rules would, i believe. I don't think anyone would argue that the illusionist (as an example...I really do love the illusionist) is required for C&C completeness. To me, it's about options. I like the knight or the Prismal Eye as options in my game - and the more the better. I won't argue whether multiclassing rules should have been included in the "official" release or the PHB or not, but it's sure nice that so many house-ruled options exist, IMHO. And I'll be looking forward to the Trolls take on them, come time for the CKG.
_________________
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.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:55 pm

csperkins1970 wrote:
I'd find it more useful if it presented new, official rules alongside added, optional rules.

That's what C&C is trying to avoid. The object of the game is for folks to come up with their own rules and not wait on 'official' authority from on high.

As soon as one starts putting an 'official' stamp on something, it limits creativity.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:59 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
it's sure nice that so many house-ruled options exist, IMHO.

Bingo.

Which is the main reason I don't think they should have been included in the PHB.

There are a multitude of ways for it to be done and it is an area that should be granted options. What works for 1 campaign doens't work for another.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:00 pm

Yes, one overreaching design goal, and one that should always be considered when implementing anything into the game is this:

It is easier to add than subtract. It sounds dorky, but the point was to make things simpler to create, and allow, rather than reduce or eliminate. This means, for example, that if one wants to allow a character to have two classes, they can do that -- but, if you say characters can have two classes and then play in a game where they can't, then you've taken something from the players. This "allow first" puts everyone at the exact same starting point -- it gives only the skeleton on which to add muscle and blood.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:11 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
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.

...And there wouldn't need to be either. Nor would there by anything that GG would object to in what I'm proposing.

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here -- I just would like to see a little something provided to support what multiclassing/skill examples have been used in previous C&C offerings which were part of the Zagyg / Yggsburgh line. Since TLG can no longer carry or produce this material, it makes no sense to really continue to support it either. I completely understand that.

However, TLG probably knows, the fans have appreciated these past efforts. Some are looking forward to use or continue to use this material. We are a resourceful bunch and some will have no problem in cobbling something together if they wanted to. By the same token, as fans, there is a part of me that feels that this which has seen use beyond Yggsburgh, should remain available in some form as an option. I'm fortunate since I already have them but I've seen a few people looking for them in the past month which is why I've been pushing a bit on this.

If it seems like I'm being a bit brash about this, then I apologize and if everyone things this is a bad idea, then I'll drop it.

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

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

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:25 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
...And there wouldn't need to be either. Nor would there by anything that GG would object to in what I'm proposing.

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here -- I just would like to see a little something provided to support what multiclassing/skill examples have been used in previous C&C offerings which were part of the Zagyg / Yggsburgh line. Since TLG can no longer carry or produce this material, it makes no sense to really continue to support it either. I completely understand that.

However, TLG probably knows, the fans have appreciated these past efforts. Some are looking forward to use or continue to use this material. We are a resourceful bunch and some will have no problem in cobbling something together if they wanted to. By the same token, as fans, there is a part of me that feels that this which has seen use beyond Yggsburgh, should remain available in some form as an option. I'm fortunate since I already have them but I've seen a few people looking for them in the past month which is why I've been pushing a bit on this.

If it seems like I'm being a bit brash about this, then I apologize and if everyone things this is a bad idea, then I'll drop it.

M

Well, you can and likely will, do what you want, but if you want it on an official TLG site, it ain't gonna happen without Steve's say so.

Thing is, your trying to be logical and reasonable, and your going to run into reactions that are neither in this instance. Trust me on this.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 7:34 pm

Actually, Pat has not said he wanted TLG to host or get involved in any way, shape or form -- the Society has their own forums and their own website. TLG links to them, yes, but in general a caveat about linked-to sites is enough of a "buffer" should anything untoward occur... but, as I understand it, Pat simply wants to re-create the rules... not post them as-is. And, as we all know, rules cannot be copyrighted...

But, I really don't care one way or the other. I don't consider multiclassing a necessity.

And, that said -- if, and that is an if, something like were done, it would be a fresh, new spin. Not a rehash of a rehash.

I am so tired of "new" being "repeat."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Hrolfgar · Post by **Hrolfgar** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:34 pm

I don't think C&C needs official multiclass rules to be complete either.

I might want to do multiclassing different in different settings. I might want to not allow it at all someday.
I still ok with different options being available in CKG, but don't want to see fill up the book. And it doesn't need the Ygsburgh multiclass options.

FWIW I decided against using Gary's Yggsburgh multiclass rules as written in my Eastmark game because the way it handle hit dice, character got full hit dice every time they leveled. That seemed just as overpowering as Bowbe's adding the bonuses. It is also inconsistent with the latter that were printed products.

I want see C&C basic, but I want hobb err I mean halfling class included as well

Lord Tryon · Post by **Lord Tryon** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:32 pm

Hrolfgar wrote:
I don't think C&C needs official multiclass rules to be complete either.

I might want to do multiclassing different in different settings. I might want to not allow it at all someday.
I still ok with different options being available in CKG, but don't want to see fill up the book. And it doesn't need the Ygsburgh multiclass options.

FWIW I decided against using Gary's Yggsburgh multiclass rules as written in my Eastmark game because the way it handle hit dice, character got full hit dice every time they leveled. That seemed just as overpowering as Bowbe's adding the bonuses. It is also inconsistent with the latter that were printed products.

I want see C&C basic, but I want hobb err I mean halfling class included as well

I agree that it is not needed and that there is many ways to do it. I started this thread not to debate the different how to's but wanted to know the method used in the DB modules (though at first I thought they were in other products lines as well).

The reason for my question is I like consistency and since these modules have multiclassing I wanted to know how it was done so I can keep things uniform. He said it was going to be put in an upcoming product so I will have to wait though I really would like it sooner but understand the problem of only so much room and having too much material to put in.

I am going to be happy as long as rules (even if setting specific) being used are stated so as not to be left wondering. I would suggest to TLG that the main setting (Aihrde) be kept to single class or only have one or possibly two multi-class rules systems that are used in official products.

The reason is this though I agree that it does limit creativity some it also keeps rule bloat down and brand recognition is increased. I love rpgs and also use FUDGE system for games. One of the problems found in the community is that since we all customize our rules so much we lack some cohesiveness as a group. This makes it hard to discuss rules and variations as it takes so long to get everyone on the same page. When we played AD&D we didn't use many rules or houseruled but at least when speaking to others we had the base ruleset to explain where our changes came in from.

This is why though I like keeping multi-classing optional that I would still like TLG to decide on one optional ruleset that is its official endorses even though others can uise it or not.

I am a little tired so I hope my thoughts on this is explained well enough.

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:42 pm

Hrolfgar wrote:
FWIW I decided against using Gary's Yggsburgh multiclass rules as written in my Eastmark game because the way it handle hit dice, character got full hit dice every time they leveled. That seemed just as overpowering as Bowbe's adding the bonuses.

I'm pretty certain that was a typo corrected in the Yggsburgh errata.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:04 pm

As Lord Tryon said...uniformity. I think there should be some account for uniformity. It would allow for better intergration of rules between sub-systems (DB stuff, A series, Yggsburgh, etc.). It probably won't happen but I feel, even with leaving it "unofficial," there should be some consideration for uniformity. That's my two cents, anyway.
_________________
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.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:28 pm

With a system that takes great pride in its modularity, I doubt such uniformity will happen or even if it is that desirable.

Also, the "inconsistency" it causes is a perceived problem and not a true problem. In actual game play, these encounters only make up small portions of the game and 99% of the time, even if the stat block had a blatant typo, the groups will not notice it while playing. So, for me at least, it is a non-issue.

As always I refer to DangerDwarf's Rule of Dungeoneering:

If you spend more time statting or tweaking a critter than it takes your average Adventuring Party to kill it....you are doing something wrong.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:36 pm

It's a perceived problem for those who know their way around the system. For others, new players and the like, I could see it adding to any confusion they may have.
_________________
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.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:39 pm

No more than "why does this critter use d8's and this critter use d10's for their HD"?

Their NPC's. Its just how it is.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:49 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
No more than "why does this critter use d8's and this critter use d10's for their HD"?

Their NPC's. Its just how it is.

But two wrongs do not make a right.
And we're talking multiclassing for PCs, not specifically NPCs.
_________________
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.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:54 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
But two wrongs do not make a right.

Disagreement with a design philosophy does not make it wrong.

Lord Dynel wrote:
And we're talking multiclassing for PCs, not specifically NPCs.

Then talk of uniformity in products pointless. The CK determines that, not the module. It's NPC's in the products, not PC's.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:05 pm

As this thread clearly illustrates, there is a reason why the rules were not included in the PHB. The original discussion went on for some 400 + posts, and no agreement was reached there either.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:09 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Disagreement with a design philosophy does not make it wrong.

True enough. Which is why there's no wrong reason not to have one multiclassing system. I personally like the fact that there are multiple systems out there - fan-created and otherwise. But I also believe there should be a "TLG approved" system. Whether they intend to or not, I think the inclusion of a system in the CKG will become the "default system" for many folk.

I can't believe that AD&D, which had basically the same rules for multiclassing system for 20 years, had it "wrong" or "pointless" in having a uniform multiclassing system. And it has nothing to do with "system envy" - it's just something that made sense...a point of reference for creating and playing the multiclass system.
_________________
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.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:27 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
But I also believe there should be a "TLG approved" system.

I think it should remain optional as it is an unnecessary system. There are a lot of games that don't have it.

Lord Dynel wrote:
I can't believe that AD&D, which had basically the same rules for multiclassing system for 20 years, had it "wrong" or "pointless" in having a uniform multiclassing system.

It was a uniform system which lacked many points of uniformity.

Demihumans multi-class (each with their own allowed combos that were not uniform with the other races). Humans couldn't multi-class...they had to dual class.

Then, thats not even including some of the specific settings which had their own rules for the various race/class combos (with new classes too!)

Leave it to the setting I say.

Lord Tryon · Post by **Lord Tryon** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:05 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Leave it to the setting I say.

That then could be said of every rule in the PHB and of just even having character classes in the first place.

I mean you take the Airde setting and use Runequest or GURPS, the way the setting will play will be very different. I don't care what people say, the system and the setting work together and are not isolated from one another. The way spells work in C&C vs. Rolemaster spell system makes a great difference in how a dungeon may or may not be designed for a setting. To say they are not connected in some way is wrong.

This is not to say you cannot houserule any way you want, but C&C is descended from D&D and dual/multiclassing has been apart of that history for a long time. I agree with TLG in putting it in as an optional rule in the CKG but I also agree with Lord Dynel that it will most likely become the standard. I also agree that it should be. Though if I remember correctly so was the Bard class in AD&D.

Here are my few reasons as to why I think the way I do. If I move to another state and try to hook up with another game group I want C&C to play similiar to what I am used to playing. If the houserules take so long to explain that I feel that I am playing a differnt game then it really doesn't matter what title is on the cover be it C&C, D&D or Osric or whatever. The brand recognition is lost and it doesn't matter what system I use then. No one who rpgs ever has to buy a rule system for anyone can make one up. The idea of having a standard ruleset is to bring uniformity, establish community, and save time from having to create everything from scratch.

I don't play C&C because of it options but because the core mechaniacs fit what I need to play the type of rpg I want to play. I will even use some rules that I am not really impresed with in the book because it is easier to do so than to try and recreate the wheel. It allows me to buy an adventure and know roughly what I am getting. If every C&C module has a bunch of exceptions to the core rules in them, I and those like me will probably go elsewhere. The reason is not because we don't like the people of TLG but we don't have the time to rework everything we buy. Having a set standard allows those of us who cannot or do not want to spend hours in prep time the ability to spend our time playing the game not creating the game.

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:07 pm

Buttmonkey wrote:
I'm pretty certain that was a typo corrected in the Yggsburgh errata.

Re-read those rules. The character ceases to gain HD when his total levels reach 10. If that means 6 levels of thief and 4 of fighter, the character has 6d6+4d10 HD and gains the constant value for any levels after this, just as if he had reached 10th level as a single classed character.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:30 pm

Lord Tryon wrote:
I don't play C&C because of it options but because the core mechaniacs fit what I need to play the type of rpg I want to play. I will even use some rules that I am not really impresed with in the book because it is easier to do so than to try and recreate the wheel. It allows me to buy an adventure and know roughly what I am getting. If every C&C module has a bunch of exceptions to the core rules in them, I and those like me will probably go elsewhere.

I agree with the sentiments of much that you are saying. I suppose our fundamental difference is in what each of us views as creating a "need to house rule".

Encountering an NPC in a module who is multi-classed when I make make absolutely no use of any MC rules whatsoever does not require me to do any extra work to effectively use the NPC. I do not need to suddenly spend my free time developing a rule system to allow for his existence. In fact he will be used and run exactly the same whether I use the rules or not. It doesn't even cause a minor speed bump in the ease with which I can use him. The PHB gives me every thing I need to use that NPC to it's full extent.

If such vagaries were used in the combat system, XP system or some other more integral aspect of the game then yes, it would be a problem. I'd have to house rule it.

Encountering an NPC who can cast spells & pick locks, to me at least, does not necessitate the need for a house rule nor does it require me to re-create the wheel.

Now, will having a set of MC rules in the CKG be beneficial? Yup.

As a CK am I required to know what they will be to effectively make and use NPC's who can function in the capacity of 2 different classes? Nope.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:43 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
I think it should remain optional as it is an unnecessary system. There are a lot of games that don't have it.

It was a uniform system which lacked many points of uniformity.

Demihumans multi-class (each with their own allowed combos that were not uniform with the other races). Humans couldn't multi-class...they had to dual class.

It still had rules. Those rules were consistent. All products made fo those rules that had multiclass characters followed the same rules, whether it was Spelljammer, Greyhawk, FR, or what-have-you.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Then, thats not even including some of the specific settings which had their own rules for the various race/class combos (with new classes too!)

That's besides the point. Even with new/different rules for class and race combos (Dark Sun springs to mind) the rules for multiclassing were consistant.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Leave it to the setting I say.

Lord Tryon said it best:

Lord Tryon wrote:
That then could be said of every rule in the PHB and of just even having character classes in the first place.

Honestly, I'm with you on this DD - I don't think there has to necessarily be an official rule for this particular area. But it would only benefit the setting, IMHO, if all the products followed the same rules. If you're going to include multiclass characters and have 4 different subsystems, that's all well and good, but questions are going to arise. Many like a point-of-reference.

DangerDwarf wrote:
I agree with the sentiments of much that you are saying. I suppose our fundamental difference is in what each of us views as creating a "need to house rule".

Encountering an NPC in a module who is multi-classed when I make make absolutely no use of any MC rules whatsoever does not require me to do any extra work to effectively use the NPC. I do not need to suddenly spend my free time developing a rule system to allow for his existence. In fact he will be used and run exactly the same whether I use the rules or not. It doesn't even cause a minor speed bump in the ease with which I can use him. The PHB gives me every thing I need to use that NPC to it's full extent.

If such vagaries were used in the combat system, XP system or some other more integral aspect of the game then yes, it would be a problem. I'd have to house rule it.

Encountering an NPC who can cast spells & pick locks, to me at least, does not necessitate the need for a house rule nor does it require me to re-create the wheel.

Now, will having a set of MC rules in the CKG be beneficial? Yup.

As a CK am I required to know what they will be to effectively make and use NPC's who can function in the capacity of 2 different classes? Nope.

Despite my post, I agree with this.
_________________
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.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:56 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
But it would only benefit the setting, IMHO, if all the products followed the same rules.

I think the other disconnect comes due to a difference in how we view PC's and NPC's.

MC rules are for PC's. So, when it comes to a printed product, unless you are writing a book called "The Big Fat Book of Karboskian PC's", MC rules for that setting will have absolutely zero effect or benefit to the NPC's you would put in the "HH Folio" for example.

NPC's and PC's operate under two completely different assumptions. I do not need to use any PC applicable rule in creating an NPC. So, having a standard MC rule for a setting, while helpful if I'm creating a PC there, does absolutely nothing for me in peppering a city with NPCs.

I know not everyone ascribes to the same thought in NPC design, the numerous threads on the topic (adding classes to monsters ring a bell?) on these boards over the years but that is the default philosophy which C&C uses.

So, all of the products are following the same rule currently. They are creating NPC's with the necessary elements for the particular story.

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:42 pm

paladin2019 wrote:
Re-read those rules. The character ceases to gain HD when his total levels reach 10. If that means 6 levels of thief and 4 of fighter, the character has 6d6+4d10 HD and gains the constant value for any levels after this, just as if he had reached 10th level as a single classed character.

Reread the errata (if you can find it). I believe the final version as corrected in the online errata said the PC gets a HD for each level in each class up through 10th level, but the PC divides the HD roll by the number of classes. Thus, if a PC had 3 classes and leveled up in, say, fighter, the PC would roll a d10 for new hit points and divide the result by 3. Unfortunately, the errata page was taken down when GG yanked TLG's license to produce CZ products. If anyone has a hard copy of that errata, I'd love to have it. (Hint hint hint...)

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:29 pm

Buttmonkey wrote:
Reread the errata (if you can find it). I believe the final version as corrected in the online errata said the PC gets a HD for each level in each class up through 10th level, but the PC divides the HD roll by the number of classes. Thus, if a PC had 3 classes and leveled up in, say, fighter, the PC would roll a d10 for new hit points and divide the result by 3. Unfortunately, the errata page was taken down when GG yanked TLG's license to produce CZ products. If anyone has a hard copy of that errata, I'd love to have it. (Hint hint hint...)

BM, I have the errata fixed PDF. PM me an email and I'll send it to you.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:31 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
I think the other disconnect comes due to a difference in how we view PC's and NPC's.

MC rules are for PC's. So, when it comes to a printed product, unless you are writing a book called "The Big Fat Book of Karboskian PC's", MC rules for that setting will have absolutely zero effect or benefit to the NPC's you would put in the "HH Folio" for example.

NPC's and PC's operate under two completely different assumptions. I do not need to use any PC applicable rule in creating an NPC. So, having a standard MC rule for a setting, while helpful if I'm creating a PC there, does absolutely nothing for me in peppering a city with NPCs.

I know not everyone ascribes to the same thought in NPC design, the numerous threads on the topic (adding classes to monsters ring a bell?) on these boards over the years but that is the default philosophy which C&C uses.

So, all of the products are following the same rule currently. They are creating NPC's with the necessary elements for the particular story.

I probably do look at it a bit differently. That's that damn 3e and it's "monsters and PCs should follow the same rules" BS. I used to not be that way, and it's one of the last things I'm having to "unlearn." Though I still think that multiclass characters, whether they're PCs or NPCs, should follow the same rules of creation. If that varies by setting (HH, Airdhe, Yggsburgh, or whatnot) then so be it, but I think that the rules should be uniform across characters. If not for anything other than parity between the PCs and NPCs - I feel at least in this aspect they should be on the same playing field. If a NPC wizard can pick locks (for example) and the PCs know it (or even if they don't, really), I feel there should be codified rules on how a PC can do the same thing. But that's my opinion...sometimes I'm way out there.
_________________
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.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:43 am

Quote:
Though I still think that multiclass characters, whether they're PCs or NPCs, should follow the same rules of creation.

So, out of curiosity, this applies to access to both spells, classes, and other things? So, if a player wants to be a barmaid, a standard NPC "class", then you will allow it, and not modify it at all -- for any reason, preventing them from ever advancing (since the rules do not support NPC level advancement -- they simply are whatever level they are), or even if not as retarded, and want to be something most likely reserved for "special characters" like anti-paladin or "god?" What about monstrous characters?

Somewhere, there is a line on what a PC is allowed to do, and what a NPC simply is -- they are not supposed to have the same "systems."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:08 am

Lord Dynel wrote:
If not for anything other than parity between the PCs and NPCs

I don't find it a requirement there either. When it is appropriate, the CK simply needs to increase the NPC's HD. No need for them to mimic the rules governing a PC.

Hrolfgar · Post by **Hrolfgar** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:18 am

paladin2019 wrote:
Re-read those rules. The character ceases to gain HD when his total levels reach 10. If that means 6 levels of thief and 4 of fighter, the character has 6d6+4d10 HD and gains the constant value for any levels after this, just as if he had reached 10th level as a single classed character.

a single class character with the same amount of XP would have far fewer hit dice. BtB it takes 8501xp to make level 4 fighter and 24,001 xp to make 6th level rogue. A single class rogue would be still 6th level with 6d6 hd. A single level fighter would be 5th level 5d10 hd. I feel that gives multiclass characters too big of an advantage, at least until 11th level.

Errata might have fixed this. In CZ/UW multiclass elves (some with 3 classes) have their hit dice averaged out, like Buttmonkey posted.