Multi-classing in DCC RPG?

[geordie racer]

Quoting myself on using backgrounds instead of builds.

Aragorn - a human fighter with the background 'woodsman' or 'scout'. So we know Aragorn is experienced at tracking, foraging etc and he can get a bonus or roll a better dice type when he draws on his background.

Conan - he's a fighter whose superb physical and mental attributes are to his advantage when sneaking/climbing. In play - Player Cunning helps the character avoid the Guards by doing something devious/ingenous rather than just rolling on a Thief skill.

Grey Mouser is a Thief with the background 'Adept' or 'Wizard's pupil' which gets him a bonus or roll a better dice type when he draws on that background to learn/cast a spell, read a scroll. His Agility makes him handy in a fight. Player Cunning helps him do the smart thing.

But it's not just static, after Conan spends time as a pirate he'll probably get a bonus on jumping ship to ship, climbing rigging etc BUT ONLY IF AND WHEN that comes into play. I don't think you need to establish what a 'pirate' is made up of in terms of classes in order to play one. You certainly do not need an ever-expanding list of skills or a multiple statblock.

Player optimization rather than character optimization

[Hamakto]

Player optimization rather than character optimization

While I agree with you, it just leads to more player vs. DM type friction when you get something like this:

Player: "Remember six adventures ago, we did spent a month in the elvish woods. I want to do Y because I practiced hunting with the elves"
DM: "Umm... no. That was a long time ago. "
Player: "Hrumph" and is now annoyed.

I am all for free form RPing and imaginative play. But if there is no some sort of framework here to limit what a character knows/can do, you are going to have a bunch of rule abuses and the DM saying 'No' more than 'Yes'.

Yes is a good term for a DM.

That is the only good thing about a skill system. It does limit what a character can learn/know... and prevents them from being the proverbial jack-of-all-trades for skills and knowledge. Because the rules are definite on it. It also prevents them from being the BEST at everything. The downside is that 3e and 4e have a broken skill systems...

[smathis]

Quoting myself on using backgrounds instead of builds.

I agree -- to an extent. Yet I think it would make some backgrounds "better" than others and would lead to a need for "balancing" the backgrounds and going into finer detail on backgrounds than I feel DCC needs.

I think it's a better approach to have hybrid classes. I mean, I didn't like that LotFP lacked a "Ranger" or "Fighting Specialist" class. So I created one in about an hour.

A player played one for a better part of two months with no significant problems. No power imbalance. No hogging of spotlight or taking the thunder from full-bore Fighters or Specialists/Thieves.

If the core classes are well-defined and not obfuscated behind complicated math, it should be a no-brainer to effectively "halve" one class and another and then join the two into a cohesive, "balanced" hybrid class. That's just my opinion, though.

I think that's a wiser approach than adding a complicated multi-class system. Because ultimately, what I think a player wants is a guy who can pick locks and cast a few spells. A merging of the archetypes. Not a true multi-class.

[Hamel™]

While I agree with you, it just leads to more player vs. DM type friction when you get something like this:

Player: "Remember six adventures ago, we did spent a month in the elvish woods. I want to do Y because I practiced hunting with the elves"
DM: "Umm... no. That was a long time ago. "
Player: "Hrumph" and is now annoyed.

I am all for free form RPing and imaginative play. But if there is no some sort of framework here to limit what a character knows/can do, you are going to have a bunch of rule abuses and the DM saying 'No' more than 'Yes'.

Yes is a good term for a DM.

That is the only good thing about a skill system. It does limit what a character can learn/know... and prevents them from being the proverbial jack-of-all-trades for skills and knowledge. Because the rules are definite on it. It also prevents them from being the BEST at everything. The downside is that 3e and 4e have a broken skill systems...

D&D itself has a broken skill system.. IMHO 4e's Skill System is the best among the worst.

IMHO the only way to do something like that (being proficient in bows after spending time with elves) needs another game system, like Chaosium's Basic.

If the core classes are well-defined and not obfuscated behind complicated math, it should be a no-brainer to effectively "halve" one class and another and then join the two into a cohesive, "balanced" hybrid class. That's just my opinion, though.

I think that's a wiser approach than adding a complicated multi-class system. Because ultimately, what I think a player wants is a guy who can pick locks and cast a few spells. A merging of the archetypes. Not a true multi-class.

And I quote (damned Michael Cole ).

Maybe a solution could be implementing a sort of Kit, like the one used in AD&D's Complete Handbook series.. but obviously in a different way.

The standard AD&D Kit was something like "you gain this, you lose that, but you're always the same": if you were a Fighter you still is.. just slightly different.
That is a Fighter will never learn magic to become a Fighter/Wizard.

AD&D Kits slightly changed in Player's Options: Skills & Powers, were you could stick the Assassin's Kit to pretty any class.


BTW, I think you could do something similar thinking about a Kit's Concept that could give you lesser benefits (call them secondary skills, as already done in the thread) than ones the related core class would give you.

If you want to multiclass, you can pay a fair XP Penalty and add a new template without twisting your character advancement or sharing it between 2 separate classes.

First of all, thanks to Zocchi, you can change more easily your HD: a thief adding the wizard's kit will drop his future HD from d6 to d5 (inbetween value) to express the fact he won't focus anymore on a single field (thievery) but also on an additive field (wizardry).

Talking about benefits, as the thief levels up he retain his core benefits (BAB, THAC0, ST or other matrix values) adding something new (for the wizard's kit, a poor spell progression).

IMHO this way you could multiclass pretty easily without loosing your mind into matching different advancement schemes.

[smathis]

And I quote (damned Michael Cole ).

Haha! Just give Bryan Danielson 5 minutes in the ring with him. Just 5 minutes. That's all I ask! Michael Cole is such a tool.

Maybe a solution could be implementing a sort of Kit, like the one used in AD&D's Complete Handbook series.. but obviously in a different way.

I think Kits are definitely a consideration. I don't care for them, personally. But it's definitely one way to approach the issue.

I prefer the "just make a new class" approach for it because I have had a lot of success with that in LotFP. And we're only talking about a handful of additional classes -- Fighter/Thief (Ranger), Fighter/Cleric (Paladin), Fighter/Wizard (Swordmage -- but not an Elf!), Thief/Wizard (Trickster).

Just easier to balance, IMO. And would maybe take 5 pages of text total, depending on how complicated DCC classes are.

I'd rather kits and backgrounds differentiate characters of the same class. So one Fighter/Thief could be a Ranger, another could be a Pirate or a Bandit. One Fighter/Cleric could be a Witch Hunter, another could be a Paladin. Just like one Thief could be a Tomb Robber and another a Trap Finder. Or one Fighter could be a Barbarian and another a Samurai.

[fireinthedust]

I like optimization in terms of good design, so long as it's in-character: weird combos that are off-concept bother me.

That said, the game doesn't need to be all things to all people. If there isn't a solid multiclassing ruleset, it's not the end of the world.

What's this discussion of "backgrounds"? I missed that. Are we talking about backgrounds in the same way Dragon Age does them: a set of skills outside of class that give you bonuses just for being, say, a Cimmerian, a Melnibonéan royal, or an elf?

If so, that might solve *a lot* of problems for multiclassing. Also for skills, like Profession: Sailor; everyone from the "sea-born sailor" background would get a +2 bonus to checks related to sailing, being on a ship, and knowledge: navigation. They'd be ability score checks, not skill checks, but there you go. Cimmerians would all be able to climb walls, Melnibonéans would get a bonus to summoning chaos spirits, Zamorians would get bonuses to being thieving jerks, etc.

And if we don't have skills, for preference of ability score checks, could we *please* not end up with rules where Thieves are the only ones who can climb over a fence with "climb walls"?

[JRR]

What game has that rule? IN AD&D all non thief characters have a default 40% chance to climb walls. And anyway, you shouldn't even have to roll to climb a fence.

[Ravenheart87]

And if we don't have skills, for preference of ability score checks, could we *please* not end up with rules where Thieves are the only ones who can climb over a fence with "climb walls"?

That's the wrong use of thief skills. In my Swords & Wizardry campaign we use it almost like the Mighty Deed of Arms of DCC. The thief's skills mean that he's BETTER in doing something, he can accomplish marvelous and almost impossible tasks. Anyone can climb a wall, but the thief has a chance to do it without tools. Anyone can move silently, but the thief has a chance to do it without any noise. Anyone can found a trap and discharge it safely, but the thief can understand it's mechanism and disarm it without activating the trap. If the thief fails on the skill check, he has to do it like the others. Better luck next time.
Thieves appeared in OD&D's Supplement I. The original white box had only fighters, clerics, magic-users and demihumans, but no thieves. There are still groups who don't use thieves. Does this mean their characters can't climb walls and disarm traps? Nope, but instead of a dice roll, they had to use their wits and tell how they were doing it.

[fireinthedust]

And if we don't have skills, for preference of ability score checks, could we *please* not end up with rules where Thieves are the only ones who can climb over a fence with "climb walls"?

That's the wrong use of thief skills. In my Swords & Wizardry campaign we use it almost like the Mighty Deed of Arms of DCC. The thief's skills mean that he's BETTER in doing something, he can accomplish marvelous and almost impossible tasks. Anyone can climb a wall, but the thief has a chance to do it without tools. Anyone can move silently, but the thief has a chance to do it without any noise. Anyone can found a trap and discharge it safely, but the thief can understand it's mechanism and disarm it without activating the trap. If the thief fails on the skill check, he has to do it like the others. Better luck next time.

Ravenheart87 & JRR: Boy do I wish I'd had *your* DM for those games!

I don't have those books anymore (sadly) but I don't remember seeing the base 40% chance. Our DM really liked thieves (on many levels), so they got lots of bonuses.

When 3e came out I remember being like "whoa, *anyone* can use stealth or climb walls?"

If anyone could try with thief skills, though, why was it that Rangers only had 10% or so at hiding in shadows in nature to start with? By default it means everyone else *can't* do it, or at least can't do it more than 10% of the time.

Thieves appeared in OD&D's Supplement I. The original white box had only fighters, clerics, magic-users and demihumans, but no thieves. There are still groups who don't use thieves. Does this mean their characters can't climb walls and disarm traps? Nope, but instead of a dice roll, they had to use their wits and tell how they were doing it.

When did rangers and Paladins come in? Is there a "history of OD&D" wiki out there? I'm interested.

[Hamel™]

I don't have those books anymore (sadly) but I don't remember seeing the base 40% chance. Our DM really liked thieves (on many levels), so they got lots of bonuses.

I don't remember too.
I just remember Thieves were the only ones able to climb a sheer surface, while it's up to DM's decision to tell if a non-thief can climb or not a wall (usually with no rolls).

If anyone could try with thief skills, though, why was it that Rangers only had 10% or so at hiding in shadows in nature to start with? By default it means everyone else *can't* do it, or at least can't do it more than 10% of the time.

Because sadly skills - created to mark a difference between the Fighting Men and a Thief, also if we have protoskills in Men&Magic itself (elven/dwarven spotting ability) - are still an unsolved problem in D&D, through all editions.

When did rangers and Paladins come in? Is there a "history of OD&D" wiki out there? I'm interested.

Paladin - as a fighting-men subclass - appeared in Supplement I - Greyhawk, while Rangers appeared officially in 1st Edition AD&D PHB (and unofficially in The Strategic Review in 1975, later replaced by Dragon Magazine).

[Ravenheart87]

Ravenheart87 & JRR: Boy do I wish I'd had *your* DM for those games!

Our group has no DM right now. Just Referee. And that's... me.

[JRR]

Climbing for non thieves is in the dungeoneer's survival guide. I think it's also in the dmg, but a cursory look failed me. I asked a sage and consulted the sage knowledge table, he overcharged me and said to come back in a month. Thieves, however, are the only ones who can climb a surface without hand or footholds. Also, depending on your race, you have a 10-30% chance of hearing noise. In my experience, those who complain about broken rules generally aren't reading the rules. In AD&D the rules simply work, though they are a pain to figure out at times due to Gary's vernacular and the crappy organization of the DMG.

Also, I agree with Hamel, if you want to climb a tree, you just climb it. No roll required. I think people color first edition with memories from their childhood. Of course the rules were broken and we were getting screwed by a power hungry sadistic 13 year old dm. We all used stupid interpretation of rules when we were 13. I remember my cleric with a lucern hammer for one, lol.

[mntnjeff]

While I agree with you, it just leads to more player vs. DM type friction when you get something like this:

Player: "Remember six adventures ago, we did spent a month in the elvish woods. I want to do Y because I practiced hunting with the elves"
DM: "Umm... no. That was a long time ago. "
Player: "Hrumph" and is now annoyed.

I am all for free form RPing and imaginative play. But if there is no some sort of framework here to limit what a character knows/can do, you are going to have a bunch of rule abuses and the DM saying 'No' more than 'Yes'.

And therein lies the difference between a game run upon old school sensibilities and one run today. In an old school game there's a tacit agreement (is covenant going too far?) between players and DM that's based on a system of trust. The players trust the DM to be impartial, fair and consistent, while the DM trusts that the players aren't going to take extreme advantage of the game. If they do then there's an understanding that "Rule 0" comes into play: The DM is the last word on rulings. Period.

You don't have to lean on rules to make a game fun. It's up to the players.

And as far as "yes" goes. I'm firmly in that camp. A DM that says "yes" but tempers it w/ consistency and agreed upon parameters is a FANTASTIC engine for an incredible game.

Example:
Player - "I want to push the orc face first into the boiling tar pit then use his back as a spring board to get across and stab that evil priest in the eye."
DM - "OK no problem. Make a contested strength roll w/ the orc. He's not paying much attention to you at the moment because he's tied up w/ the fighter, so you'll get a +2."
Player - "I won...I push him into the boiling tar!"
DM - "Yep. You lithely skip across the 10' wide tar pit, using the orc as a stepping stone. Now roll an attack roll at a minus 4 on the priest...in order to hit him in the eye."

Which is a fun way for all parties to adjudicate a situation. No skills or feats required. It's cinematic and naturally generates a lot of player creativity. But yes, you have to trust one another to do this type of thing. It's probably not for everyone. Sure is fun though.

[smathis]

And therein lies the difference between a game run upon old school sensibilities and one run today. In an old school game there's a tacit agreement (is covenant going too far?) between players and DM that's based on a system of trust. The players trust the DM to be impartial, fair and consistent, while the DM trusts that the players aren't going to take extreme advantage of the game. If they do then there's an understanding that "Rule 0" comes into play: The DM is the last word on rulings. Period.

I agree... with a caveat. That sort of trust and DMing in such a way that engenders that trust is something that is difficult to learn how to do and very difficult to learn from a book.

I think that's the reason 4e went the direction it did. I've played 4e under 6-7 DMs over the last two years. And observed several other DMs in action. I swear you could barely tell them apart -- despite a broad range of age and roleplaying experience.

I hope DCC goes the route of being grounded in "old school sensibilities" as the younguns perceive those at this point in time. And I wouldn't be against a "Rule Zero" sort of sidebar in DCC. But I'd also like to see a "Rule Zero-And-A-Half" in the DM section that points out how to use Rule Zero and not be a jerk. And it wouldn't hurt to point out techniques to earn players' trust up front.

Like saying "Yes" to the first 3-4 requests that don't completely break the game. That works for me in games with strangers.

Or the "Mountain Witch Trick" where you suggest a very vague something or other and request that the player fill in the details.

But I think it would be nice to have at least a short section on the "soft skills" of DMing. Something that has just enough meat on its bones to get new DMs to the table with confidence, yet isn't so hefty that their eyes glaze over or skip the section altogether.

[mntnjeff]

@smathis,

You're right of course. This style isn't something that works well w/ a collection of individuals who are more interested in "winning" than in a group experience. But that can be determined at the very beginning by asking everyone what their goals are when they sit down to the table. But in all honesty, I think that was one of the wonderful things about a system that's a little more "wide open" or less rules bound, it generated all different styles of DMing. It allowed different, personal stories and experiences to arise because it wasn't as strictly dictated by the rules. It's that "swingyness" (sp?) that muleabides was talking about in his report.

I'm derailing the topic a bit, and I apologize.

So in essence we're talking what? A class offers what? There's fighting, sneaking and spells. Really, that's about it. So we're talking about allowing a fighter or thief to cast spells? Is that it? Because really, a wizard can wield a sword. Sure not as well as a fighter can, but why'd you take a wizard in the first place if what you wanted was a fighter?

If it's "skills" that are the equalizer (and I don't think they are), then the professions should be able to take care of that fairly well.

But this is all sort of moot isn't it? If you're rolling 3d6 in order, and starting at level 0, then you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. I think that the idea is to introduce that old method that the fun is playing something that might be a bit out of your comfort zone. A character that will force a player to dig deep for that creativity...and when they come out of the heat of the crucible, they'll be in love w/ this odd ball character that they never thought would survive. Those are the fun stories anyway right? If we want to play a system where it's easy to make a dragon-born, spell blade holy slayer, then maybe DCC RPG isn't the right game?

[Harley Stroh]

And as far as "yes" goes. I'm firmly in that camp. A DM that says "yes" but tempers it w/ consistency and agreed upon parameters is a FANTASTIC engine for an incredible game.

Example:
Player - "I want to push the orc face first into the boiling tar pit then use his back as a spring board to get across and stab that evil priest in the eye."
DM - "OK no problem. Make a contested strength roll w/ the orc. He's not paying much attention to you at the moment because he's tied up w/ the fighter, so you'll get a +2."
Player - "I won...I push him into the boiling tar!"
DM - "Yep. You lithely skip across the 10' wide tar pit, using the orc as a stepping stone. Now roll an attack roll at a minus 4 on the priest...in order to hit him in the eye."

Which is a fun way for all parties to adjudicate a situation. No skills or feats required. It's cinematic and naturally generates a lot of player creativity. But yes, you have to trust one another to do this type of thing. It's probably not for everyone. Sure is fun though.

Precisely.

A lot of 4e can be run simply by applying a rule; no adjudication required. This is a blessing, but it also can be limiting. (For instance, when extrapolating the effects of spells cast outside of combat situations.)

The DCC RPG gives judges a lot of credit. We expect them to be intelligent, firm, and fair. You don't shut down wacky ideas, you say "Yes," and assign a high DC. Great sessions are born out of that one-in-a-million chance, when the PC rolls a 20 at the very instant it is needed most. (Color spray, I'm looking at you.)

The bar is set higher for the judge. It would be fair to say that the DCC RPG isn't for every new DM/GM/judge. But I'm betting you guys can handle it.

//H

[mntnjeff]

@smathis,

After rereading my last post I realized that it sounded rather contentious and conceited. That was not at all the intent behind it. I think your ideas are absolutely valid and I hope I didn't sound like I was trodding all over them.

In the spirit of open discourse, I apologize if I sounded like a complete @$$.

[smathis]

After rereading my last post I realized that it sounded rather contentious and conceited. That was not at all the intent behind it. I think your ideas are absolutely valid and I hope I didn't sound like I was trodding all over them.

No apology needed. I got what was being said and wasn't offended in the slightest. I didn't pick up contentiousness or anything off it. We're good.

So in essence we're talking what? A class offers what? There's fighting, sneaking and spells. Really, that's about it. So we're talking about allowing a fighter or thief to cast spells? Is that it? Because really, a wizard can wield a sword. Sure not as well as a fighter can, but why'd you take a wizard in the first place if what you wanted was a fighter?

I think when 3-4 really well-defined archetypes are presented there's going to be a desire to have a hybrid in there somewhere. I think some of that can be handled by backgrounds. Or by slightly tweaking class abilities.

But I think it would be nice to have at least a class that's a Fighter/Magic-User hybrid and another that's a Thief/Magic-User hybrid. And I'm not talking an Elf. I'm talking a Fighter/Magic-User that is exactly one-half of a Fighter's benefits and one-half of a Magic-User's benefits.

I tend to think that a separate "class" would handle this better than multi-classing. So we could have a class and be told "Here, if you want to play a Thief that can cast spells... this is it!" I've never seen multi-classing that I really liked. And with a decently elegant class design, it should be a no-brainer to do these sorts of hybrid classes.

Then I think we can let the group or background or occupation determine if the Fighter/Magic-User is a Zamoran Trickster or a Half-Drow or whatever. I like it when classes give us archetypes, not flavor. Let us provide the flavor.

That said, I think it would be too much for the core-book. Good for a DCC supplement or 3PP publication, IMO.

And, that said, regarding DMing and such... I'd rather not forget that one of the main reasons that 3e and 4e became so big on rules, rules, rules is because there was a full-on decade of DMs who were just really crappy. The rulings weren't cutting it. Personally, I think 3e and 4e took the wrong approach. I think they should've offered more direction on the rulings. Not more rules.

Hopefully, DCC keeps in mind that a crappy DM can ruin a game for everyone involved. Even more easily than a crappy player can, IMO. So some help in the realm of how to be a decent DM would be appreciated. Even that "Say Yes" stuff. That was NOWHERE in the '80s. In fact, most DMs I played with said "No" almost exclusively. And I played with a LOT of DMs. The "Say Yes" thing didn't reach vogue until Chris Chinn and the Forge squeezed it out. Now it's in the 4e DMG. Go figure.

That said, I think we'd have LESS RULES NOW if we SAID YES MORE THEN!

Just my opinion though...

[mntnjeff]

But I think it would be nice to have at least a class that's a Fighter/Magic-User hybrid and another that's a Thief/Magic-User hybrid. And I'm not talking an Elf. I'm talking a Fighter/Magic-User that is exactly one-half of a Fighter's benefits and one-half of a Magic-User's benefits.

I tend to think that a separate "class" would handle this better than multi-classing. So we could have a class and be told "Here, if you want to play a Thief that can cast spells... this is it!" I've never seen multi-classing that I really liked. And with a decently elegant class design, it should be a no-brainer to do these sorts of hybrid classes.

Interesting idea actually. I'm not sure I've ever really thought about class as a higher level template that could be tweaked and personalized via some type of "background" kit (for lack of better terminology).

But I agree that a traditional system (in D&D mind you) of multi-classing is generally bulky and historically ill-conceived. And that most of that could probably be taken care of at the root level: Classes. Problem is, (and here's where 3.X went south IMHO) that road could potentially lead to ruin. This is where prestige classes came about as well as all sorts of other base corner-classes.

As long as you based your classes on simple principles (magic, melee, and thief-based abilities to a lesser extent...I'm not sold on that last one btw.) you could only derive so many permutations, right? Sure you could go about classifying magic into types or schools, or melee into different styles, but that's really about flavor at the end of the day isn't it?

Hopefully, DCC keeps in mind that a crappy DM can ruin a game for everyone involved. Even more easily than a crappy player can, IMO. So some help in the realm of how to be a decent DM would be appreciated. Even that "Say Yes" stuff. That was NOWHERE in the '80s. In fact, most DMs I played with said "No" almost exclusively. And I played with a LOT of DMs. The "Say Yes" thing didn't reach vogue until Chris Chinn and the Forge squeezed it out. Now it's in the 4e DMG. Go figure.

That said, I think we'd have LESS RULES NOW if we SAID YES MORE THEN!

Just my opinion though...

Yep, I can't agree heartily enough on this point. Funny thing about DMing...it's kind of like politics, the best aren't in it for the power, but for what they can do for the common good. (I hope I didn't cross any lines there.)

I'm not sure if a book can cure that, but maybe some concrete examples might be a nice start. The OSR Primer is a good example. (Did I get that title right?)

After watching Harley DM, I can definitely say that just plain ol having fun is a huge prerequisite though.

[Black Dougal]

I'm not sure if a book can cure that, but maybe some concrete examples might be a nice start. The OSR Primer is a good example. (Did I get that title right?)

It is "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming"
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/quick ... ng/3159558

After watching Harley DM, I can definitely say that just plain ol having fun is a huge prerequisite though.

If it isn't fun, why do it? So, I would say that fun is definitely compulsory.

[smathis]

Interesting idea actually. I'm not sure I've ever really thought about class as a higher level template that could be tweaked and personalized via some type of "background" kit (for lack of better terminology).

That's my preferred approach. A "barbarian" is a fighter with a class ability subbed out and some flavor. No need for a new class just for the flavor of a barbarian.

As long as you based your classes on simple principles (magic, melee, and thief-based abilities to a lesser extent...I'm not sold on that last one btw.) you could only derive so many permutations, right? Sure you could go about classifying magic into types or schools, or melee into different styles, but that's really about flavor at the end of the day isn't it?

I think the approach is self-regulating if classes remain at the top of the chain and relatively flavorless. I mean, if you have classes for a warrior, spellcaster and skills guy. Then how many permutations can there be without the flavor? Warrior covers a Weapon Master, a Knight, a Barbarian... A spellcaster covers an Alchemist, Demonologist, Sorcerer, Wizard... A skills guy covers Thieves, Tomb Robbers, Gamblers. While a Warrior-Skill guy hybrid is a Ranger or a Swashbuckler or a Pirate. And a Thief-Wizard covers a Trickster, an Indiana Jones type of scholar or even a Warlock.

I think classes bloat when different classes are created for granular flavor-based concepts. So creating a class for a Hexblade instead of tacking on a background or a "kit" to an existing Fighter/Mage hybrid is, IMO, the road to ruin.

And multi-classing doesn't help, IMO. Because that's how you get the Armiger-Hexblade-Sneak of Shadows craziness.

Yep, I can't agree heartily enough on this point. Funny thing about DMing...it's kind of like politics, the best aren't in it for the power, but for what they can do for the common good. (I hope I didn't cross any lines there.)

Lol. No lines crossed with me. I'd much rather have Aragorn or Gandalf DMing for me than Sauron. Just sayin'.

[Machpants]

Having looked through this thread I am on board with the idea of 'alternate class features' ala PfRPG. But, to be honest, I think in the core book you shouldn't bother it should be something for a supplement or 3PP.

[Hamakto]

Having looked through this thread I am on board with the idea of 'alternate class features' ala PfRPG. But, to be honest, I think in the core book you shouldn't bother it should be something for a supplement or 3PP.

The problem with this is that one DM's idea of a good hybrid class (i.e Wizard/Thief) is not the same as a second DM's. If we can get a standard multi-class ruleset working, this will eliminate the need to either carrying around supplemental class books and/or the inability to easily jump groups.

[Machpants]

I see what you are saying, and I am happy with rulebooks the size of the Pathfinder Core Book, but Joseph has stated he wants a small book. So MC rules are something that I would count as optional for later if the aim is a small core book.

[mshensley]

I think something along the lines of dual classing from AD&D works better for appendix N stuff. The Grey Mouser, for example, started off as a mage then switched to thief. He wasn't a mage/thief multiclass. He stopped gaining experience as a mage.