Troll Lord Games

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.

There are no official rules for multiclassing in C&C. The CKG reportedly will have several options when it is published. As you noted, Crusader presented some options over the span of 2 issues a while back. Finally, Gary Gygax's Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh book includes multiclassing rules in its appendices. If you don't have access to any of those (or don't like those approaches), there are some fan-created rules available for download on the internet or you can always break out 1st edition AD&D and steal its rules.

I don't have any of the Zygag books and I know I can make a home rule but my question is on official modules using multiclassing and which rules were used to do so. I am asking for a couple of reasons.

1. If I want to make other NPCs that are similiar I would like to know what method they used to do so.

2. Second when my player find out they will want to be able to do the same. The old "why cannot I be a rogue/illusionist like so and so in the module?" It is frustrating when the company allows rules violations in there own modules because of that.

3. I personally believe if it is going to be allowed in a module one of the rulebooks should have the rules to do it. since Zygag is OOP and not coming back is there plans to put multi-classing in another book? and was the multi-classing rules in that book used in said modules?

4 If the publisher is going to use an optional rule in an official product they should note in the beginning that such and such is being used and where the rules for it are found.

They were left out of the core books due to the fact that there was no consensus agreement on the way to go about it.

As it stands, what's in the Crusader, and I don't recall which issue it is that Davis put his version in, is about as official as it gets.

The most common rule is that one cant multiclass or dualclass into something that the character doesn't have a prime in. Beyond that, do what suits you.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
They were left out of the core books due to the fact that there was no consensus agreement on the way to go about it.

As it stands, what's in the Crusader, and I don't recall which issue it is that Davis put his version in, is about as official as it gets.

The most common rule is that one cant multiclass or dualclass into something that the character doesn't have a prime in. Beyond that, do what suits you.

I guess the fact that I have playtested for a couple of rpg games now and that my brother for years worked in the rpg industry and used to discuss rpg rules with me fairly often that this type of thing bothers me.

I realize that no game is perfect and homerules will happen in any group. I just don't like it when they show up in official products without explaination or giving the houserule that is to be used for that product.

Lord Tryon wrote:
I guess the fact that I have playtested for a couple of rpg games now and that my brother for years worked in the rpg industry and used to discuss rpg rules with me fairly often that this type of thing bothers me.

I realize that no game is perfect and homerules will happen in any group. I just don't like it when they show up in official products without explaination or giving the houserule that is to be used for that product.

Actually, which products are you referring to? Towers of Adventure does use them, but aside from that, I was under the impression that the only part of the C&C line that did use them was the Yggsburgh/Zagyg material (for which there were rules included in that setting). I admit that, though I own all of TLG products, I haven't necessarily read through all the modules yet.

I can accept multiclassing rules being in the Zagyg material because Gygax included them in the Yggsburgh book. The inclusion in Towers of Adventure was, in my opinion, an oversight since the product was produced quickly for a Gencon release and who it was written by. However, even then, everything needed to run those multiclass NPCs are in included -- just not the rules to create them.

To be clear here, I *do* agree with you. If they show up in other official C&C books, this is a problem. Even the CKG is being set up as an option book which means any multiclassing rules that are presented in there would technically continue to be 'optional'.

As for Peter's suggestion, I'm sure he was only trying to be helpful since many people have asked about multiclassing in the past.

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

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

I know they are in th db series of modules at least in DB4 but I will check to see if they are in any other of the DB series.

Technically, some monsters can be considered "dual classed" like the ones that have their own abilities, plus those of a spellcaster. There are even a few that have two classes, like "all the abilities of a fighter and a rogue." For a NPC, it is acceptable -- there are no rules for them. None. Therefore, tjhe Castle Keeper can do whatever he wants. However, if these are being presented for pre-generated PC characters, then it is a mistake.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lord Tryon wrote:
I know they are in th db series of modules at least in DB4 but I will check to see if they are in any other of the DB series.

Thanks! I'll take a look -- I've barely flipped through that module and to be honest, I've probably looked a bit more through DB5. Ironically, DB5 presents an alternate combat rule but it includes it as an option detailing how it works if you choose to use it. Sort of one of the points you were getting at earlier in the thread. I don't remember seeing any multiclassing in the first couple of modules in the series though.

It's a great series though and I imagine that what is being used might be the Yggsburgh multiclass rules. I should point out that this used to be available as a free PDF up to the end of the year. The termination of the Yggsburgh/Zagyg license effectively put an end to all products associated with it. It prompted another thread where I was asking about the possibility of re-releasing these rules rewritten to purge the licensed elements out.

I'd do it myself but, at that point, it would just become another 'fan' adaptation of house rules.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

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

ok I am going through the module and have found these in db4:

Pg 13 Zneduri is a 2 level rogue/ 2nd level Illusionist.

Pg 16 Gundric is a 3rd level fighter /4th level artisan.

Pg 26 Elundra is a 1st level Ranger/ 4th level artisan.

So this also begs the question of the artisan class.

Db3 has this:

Pg 5 hrinkle is a 2nd level fighter/ 2nd lvl rogue.

Did not see any in db1,2 or 5.

That was on a quick scan through of just the db series. I don't remember if the other series had them or not.

Lord Tryon wrote:
2. Second when my player find out they will want to be able to do the same. The old "why cannot I be a rogue/illusionist like so and so in the module?" It is frustrating when the company allows rules violations in there own modules because of that.

Ah, but its not a rules violation. One can do anything they want with this game. The few basic guidelines in this system are not static, nor do they have to be rigidly adhered too.

As for the use of multiclass characters in a module, its simple enough for the author to write down 'such and such npc has this combination of abilities' without any need to explain why or how they get them.

As mentioned, there is likely to be a couple of differing methods for MC presented in the CKG when that comes out. But they will still be optional.
It should be noted as well that C&C's design comes from quite a different philosophical standpoint than more modern game design theory. This system is specifically geared to be minimalist and flexible to the desires of a given author or game group. When the rpg market was first born, the designers didn't have, or even worry about, an official way to do something, they just did what seemed best at the time. That's a model for the underlying philosophy of C&C as well. Guidelines and not fixed absolutes. Every game is different as is every game group.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

The most often encountered NPC's (Monsters) already operate under a different assumption than PC's. so why should non-monstrous NPC's be different?

C&C is not the only game that operates in such a manner. All editions of D&D operate as such on various degrees, even 3e with it's NPC classes.

I don't view it as a flawed formula.

DangerDwarf wrote:
The most often encountered NPC's (Monsters) already operate under a different assumption than PC's. so why should non-monstrous NPC's be different?

C&C is not the only game that operates in such a manner. All editions of D&D operate as such on various degrees, even 3e with it's NPC classes.

I don't view it as a flawed formula.

True but an NPC class is different from a character class in 3rd ed as well. also some of these NPc can become long standing NPC (working with the party) in the adventure as well. If it was just a monster I don't think I would have as much an issue than a gnome rogue /illusionist or a dwarven fighter/rogue espcially since they are PC races and classes.

If one of them end up working with the party how do I level them, what items can or cannot they use. I know some of you will say houserule and that is fine and dandy but these are printed as official not houseruled game item.

Like I said it maybe that I am sensitive to them because of my gaming background but I know my player will ask why they cannot be a fighter/rogue and such. I like to use as little houserules as possible and this frustrates me.

serleran wrote:
Technically, some monsters can be considered "dual classed" like the ones that have their own abilities, plus those of a spellcaster. There are even a few that have two classes, like "all the abilities of a fighter and a rogue." For a NPC, it is acceptable -- there are no rules for them. None. Therefore, tjhe Castle Keeper can do whatever he wants. However, if these are being presented for pre-generated PC characters, then it is a mistake.

Hmm... I hear what you're saying, but I think this is more of an issue of 'design philosophy'. As a challenge for my players to overcome, I know I'm free to whatever I want and in terms of a genuine critter. This is gladly accepted and unquestioned.

However, if we are looking at a 'standard' NPC which is of conventional race and class as appearing out of the PHB, some people may argue that an NPC should be able to be 'replicated' by the player. To be honest, I think a lot more of this notion is more common in newer game design models where balance is a primary concern.

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

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

Lord Tryon wrote:
ok I am going through the module and have found these in db4:

Pg 13 Zneduri is a 2 level rogue/ 2nd level Illusionist.

Pg 16 Gundric is a 3rd level fighter /4th level artisan.

Pg 26 Elundra is a 1st level Ranger/ 4th level artisan.

So this also begs the question of the artisan class.

Db3 has this:

Pg 5 hrinkle is a 2nd level fighter/ 2nd lvl rogue.

Did not see any in db1,2 or 5.

That was on a quick scan through of just the db series. I don't remember if the other series had them or not.

Bottom line is that every NPC should be treated like any critter entry, just having a few more specifics.

The level 2/2 whatever lets me as a Ck know what sort of SIEGE rolls the critter gets to add it's HD to. 4th level artisan? Alrighty, if he crafts something for the PC's he'll add 4 to his roll.

I don;t use multiclass rules for the PC's at all in my games and have no problems having NPC's with multiple abilities. NPC's aren't PC's, they operate under different assumption and purpose by default.

Quote:
some people may argue that an NPC should be able to be 'replicated' by the player.

Sure, but that also flies against the very definition of it -- non-player character which has two corollaries:

1) it is DM / CK ran character / encounter

2) it cannot be duplicated because it does not use the same rules; that is, has access to things, such as abilities not obtainable under most circumstances (for example, a sage character who has precise knowledge of some specific thing, hence the reason the character is introduced -- if the players had it, there would be no need for the NPC.)

But, there will always be those arguing about X and Y and Z and why they can't all be equal.

And, regarding the "artisan" class mention -- no idea, since nothing like it exists anywhere in the C&C rules. Some people like providing "classes" for the normal folk, like a level 10 commoner or whatever (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean -- "I'm more common than you, I'm higher level!" Stupid contradiction.) I'd ignore it, and then it is not a multiclass problem, and it solves the "I can't use house-rules" since, in fact, you'd not be.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Lord Tryon wrote:
ok I am going through the module and have found these in db4:

Pg 13 Zneduri is a 2 level rogue/ 2nd level Illusionist.

Pg 16 Gundric is a 3rd level fighter /4th level artisan.

Pg 26 Elundra is a 1st level Ranger/ 4th level artisan.

So this also begs the question of the artisan class.

Db3 has this:

Pg 5 hrinkle is a 2nd level fighter/ 2nd lvl rogue.

Did not see any in db1,2 or 5.

That was on a quick scan through of just the db series. I don't remember if the other series had them or not.

Well, the easiest fix IMO is this:

Pg 13 Zneduri is a 2 level thief who does 'sleight of hand' street performing stuff.

Pg 16 Gundric is a 3rd level fighter who works as a blacksmith (+3 on checks related to this craft)

Pg 26 Elundra is a 1st level Ranger who works as a artisan (+4 on checks related to his specific craft ... whatever you decide)

Db3 has this:

Pg 5 from DB3 Hinkle is a 2nd level fighter who arms and fights like a rogue (leather armor ... shortsword or rapier... etc).

Basically, simply eliminate the elements which are irrelevant and avoid the issue altogether. The artisan bit is a curious one but I think it's really to illustrate a level of ability with their profession. Much like a 3rd level Fighter could be the equivalent to a 5th level farmer.

At least this is what comes to my mind when I see something like artisan.

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

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

I'm a bit slow on the upswing it seems.

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

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

serleran wrote:
Sure, but that also flies against the very definition of it -- non-player character which has two corollaries:

1) it is DM / CK ran character / encounter

2) it cannot be duplicated because it does not use the same rules; that is, has access to things, such as abilities not obtainable under most circumstances (for example, a sage character who has precise knowledge of some specific thing, hence the reason the character is introduced -- if the players had it, there would be no need for the NPC.)

But, there will always be those arguing about X and Y and Z and why they can't all be equal.

And, regarding the "artisan" class mention -- no idea, since nothing like it exists anywhere in the C&C rules. Some people like providing "classes" for the normal folk, like a level 10 commoner or whatever (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean -- "I'm more common than you, I'm higher level!" Stupid contradiction.) I'd ignore it, and then it is not a multiclass problem, and it solves the "I can't use house-rules" since, in fact, you'd not be.

I see what your saying but there still is a problem. Here we have an made up class. I can assume what it means/ ignore it/ or whatever it still is poor game design at that point. It was put in for a reason but I have to guess what that is or make up my own rules to cover it.

One of the things that I remember when C&C came out is it had an old school feel but a unified system for play instead of a lot of exceptions and different rules for different situations. What we have here though is more and more exceptions being added into the game by the company which are now officially accepted (though I grant it may have been just an oversight in proofreading as well).

I have had 30 year fo rpging experience and I am tired of having to guess what the game company means and trying to guess which houserules or assumptions they are working under. I would hope to expect the game companies follow there own rules and expections be the expection not the rule when it comes to official products.

Technically, it is not poor game design; it is not poor module design either -- it is the author implementing a specific desired "feel" for that particular adventure, much as an individual might want to eliminate, or add, a monster to a locale in-game where that might not have been mentioned or otherwise indicated. The addition of the multiclass rules in the DB series is a houserule -- not the rules as written. So, removing (or ignoring) them is actually making it the way the game (as a whole, and separate from one instance) was intended.

Bowbe (the author of the DB series) wanted certain characters to have a mix of abilities not possible by having a single class. As these are NPCs, it is within the rules to allow it. Should the "artisan" class have been defined? Probably. Is it an echo of the SRD? Maybe. Does it break any rule? No. Does it create any rules? Yes, within that campaign / series of adventures. Are these official? Only when running that set of modules.

Modules often times, or did in the past, introduced setting-specific "rules." I6: Ravenloft, for example, does this, and so does S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Granted, at some point, like with Monster Manual II for AD&D1e, the various "new monsters" were made official by seeing collection and print... but they started as "houserules for the adventure."

I don't see anything other than that happening here, though, I do hope we don't get into the d20 mindset that NPCs need classes (though we're very far away from that.)
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

I don't consider it poor game design either. It is rather obvious what a level 2 rogue / level 2 Illusionist can do. The author just saved a couple paragraphs by using those term though.

As for a new "class" of artisan? Again, not a problem, a larger sentence or two succinctly summarized in a word.

Lord Tryon wrote:
I see what your saying but there still is a problem. Here we have an made up class. I can assume what it means/ ignore it/ or whatever it still is poor game design at that point. It was put in for a reason but I have to guess what that is or make up my own rules to cover it.

One of the things that I remember when C&C came out is it had an old school feel but a unified system for play instead of a lot of exceptions and different rules for different situations. What we have here though is more and more exceptions being added into the game by the company which are now officially accepted (though I grant it may have been just an oversight in proofreading as well).

I have had 30 year fo rpging experience and I am tired of having to guess what the game company means and trying to guess which houserules or assumptions they are working under. I would hope to expect the game companies follow there own rules and expections be the expection not the rule when it comes to official products.

Well as far as that goes, the core rules, which are the M&T, and PHB, as far as anything is, have remained relatively static. Modules, however, especially with independent settings like Casey's Haunted Highlands, can include all sorts of unofficial options if the author wishes.

Its an important distinction. The 'company' isn't adding in the optional material, the author is.

Sometimes, you'll see in other modules where a monster type has an extra HD or two, or some other extra ability not covered in an 'official' rule simply because the author wanted that creature to have a bit more challenge.

There are however vague guidelines on how to simply just tack on a class or class abilities to a given creature in the M&T (page 88), although its under magic item creation.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well as far as that goes, the core rules, which are the M&T, and PHB, as far as anything is, have remained relatively static. Modules, however, especially with independent settings like Casey's Haunted Highlands, can include all sorts of unofficial options if the author wishes.

Its an important distinction. The 'company' isn't adding in the optional material, the author is.

Sometimes, you'll see in other modules where a monster type has an extra HD or two, or some other extra ability not covered in an 'official' rule simply because the author wanted that creature to have a bit more challenge.

There are however vague guidelines on how to simply just tack on a class or class abilities to a given creature in the M&T (page 88), although its under magic item creation.

I will agree with you there, I did blow it out of proportion. I also thought I saw the multiclassing in other module series as well initially. Though when you buy 10 modules and read them all in a couple of days things tend to blur a bit.

I do think that the changes/optional material found in a setting/module should be explained especially rules divergences/ new classes. I guess I would have more of a complaint if I found this in the Aihrde setting books.

Though for the record I did not know the DB series was a independent setting but part of the official Aihrde setting just not set in the cradle.

Lord Tryon wrote:
I do think that the changes/optional material found in a setting/module should be explained especially rules divergences/ new classes. I guess I would have more of a complaint if I found this in the Aihrde setting books.

Well, at some point, once the various series 'culminates' there will be a setting boxed set with such information in it.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

And I don't think some of the stuff warrants additional information.

Artisan for example.

We know what an artisan is and the area description that the NPC is found in lets you know what their craft is.

As gamers and CK's we know what the word level implies.

I'd rather have that than extra space taken up explaining the mundane.

Me too, unless there is some specific need to include more, such as "an artisan of level 6 or greater can craft items which can be enchanted, as they are assumed to be automatically expert craftsmanship." But, this, personally, I prefer to leave to Castle Keeper adjudication, though I know many others like it as a rule.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

I say this is an excellent time to pitch a new product:

"Multiclassing the Bowbe Way".

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

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

You could use the CZ Skills and Options suppliment. It had Gary's take on multi/dual classing and a skills system. I looked on the Troll site but couldn't find it. If you want a copy, PM me your email and I'll send it to you.

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

Rigon wrote:
You could use the CZ Skills and Options suppliment. It had Gary's take on multi/dual classing and a skills system. I looked on the Troll site but couldn't find it. If you want a copy, PM me your email and I'll send it to you.

R-

As someone mentioned earlier, we had to take it down cause its all part of the Trigee IP.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
As someone mentioned earlier, we had to take it down cause its all part of the Trigee IP.

And that sucks.

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