Goodman Games

At least one of my players would like a multi-classing option, and I am inclined to be obliging, but the nature of the DCC RPG seems (to me) to preclude easy multi-classing. I certainly don't want a character to take one level of each class, and then get all of the resultant benefits! But, it has been pointed out to me that a character like Conan or Tarzan would be better modelled by allowing some form of multi-classing. Also, of course, there is the desire of some to play an Elf Wizard or a Halfling Warrior.

So, what I am planning on doing is this: I am going to write a half-level progression for all of the human classes. If you are a Halfling, and you want to be a Warrior, your first level only gains you the benefits of the half-level. Likewise, if you are a human Warrior and you want to practice thievery as well, you can take a half-level in Thief. After the half-level, you may use another advancement to gain the full 1st level benefits of the Thief class.

In other words, I am envisioning that one could have a third level character who was a Warrior 1/Cleric 1, who has 3 full Hit Dice, and who can then progress as either a Warrior or Cleric without further difficulties. A character two wished to have three classes would have to be 5th level before he was 1st level in all three classes.

I am not envisioning demi-human half levels, because the demi-human levels are the base and should come naturally. Also, the half-level fee would be paid before multi-classing into the demi-human class, as described above.

If there is interest in this idea, I will write it up for Crawl!. It is certainly going to be playtested in my home campaign.

RC

Would be nice to see it, mate. Oh, and deleted your duplicate thread.

Colin wrote:Would be nice to see it, mate. Oh, and deleted your duplicate thread.

Thanks. Wasn't aware I'd spawned a threadpelgänger.

*looks around conspiratorially*Maybe... you're... infected!*flees*

I agree would be nice to see a multi/dual class option! It would be something that would love to see in a Crawl! book .

Colin wrote:*looks around conspiratorially*Maybe... you're... infected!*flees*

Infected with fleas? I don't think so.

You could instead create a mechanism for them to train on aspects of the other classes instead of full blown versions. For instance let a warrior 'learn' how to climb walls like a thief etc.

Rostranor wrote:You could instead create a mechanism for them to train on aspects of the other classes instead of full blown versions. For instance let a warrior 'learn' how to climb walls like a thief etc.

http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2012/0 ... d-way.html

From my understanding of your approach, this is somewhat reminescent of the D&D 4E Hybrid class system. If you are not familiar with it, you might want to have a look. I thought it was relatively well done. In essence, they 4E Hybrid class system gives a list of abilities you gain at each level when you are levelling up two classes at once. So you start as, say, a fighter-wizard 1/1 from the get-go, and you gain 1/2 HPs from the wiz class, 1/2 from the fighter class; then you split the powers you normally gain in a single class, into two classes; and then all class-specific features you do gain when you take on two hybrid classes are listed. The end result is very balanced, I've tried it out; in fact the PCs are probably very slightly weaker, but have of course more versatility.

So in this case, what you could do is make half-classes for all classes including the human and non-human classes. Anyone who takes on two classes, be that a human that becomes a fighter-wizard or a halfling that becomes a wizard, would benefit from the abilities of each of his half-classes. For example, at level 1, the class progression could look like this:

halfling half-class
infravision
luck regeneration
1d6 HPs divided by 2 (keep fraction, but round down after HPs are added with those of other half-class)

Wizard half-class
2 spells known
Maximum spellburn = 1+Stamina modifier
1d4 HPs divided by 2 (keep fraction, but round down after HPs are added with those of other half-class)
etc... (anything a class gets, give half; for saving throws, if the class normally gets +1 on two different saves, only give +1 on a single save, and so on)

On at least a few things, you need to round down, otherwise multiclassing becomes the better option. I think that versatility should come at a price, but that's my preference.

Once the list is done, anyone can multiclass, although demi-humans could only take one a single other class as their race counts as class at the outset.

Sky

I have no interest in examining the 4e method of doing this, as 4e is not OGL-compliant, and I would like to make my version available for others to use.

RC

Raven_Crowking wrote:I have no interest in examining the 4e method of doing this, as 4e is not OGL-compliant, and I would like to make my version available for others to use.

RC

The concepts can be borrowed w/o negatively impinging on WotC's toes.

phg wrote:

Raven_Crowking wrote:I have no interest in examining the 4e method of doing this, as 4e is not OGL-compliant, and I would like to make my version available for others to use.

RC

The concepts can be borrowed w/o negatively impinging on WotC's toes.

Even if what I do seems to mirror what WotC has done, I have no intention of looking at WotC first. It's better for me this way, and has far less risk of WotC claiming that it is derivative work.

RC

Don't blame you Raven one bit. WoTC is a big company and can order a cease and dessist if anything we do impinges on their turf. Concepts can also be targeted, espcially if its something not open content. It's best to come up with something original that fits with the style and feel of Appendix N and DCC overall. Besides 4th ed really left a sour taste in my mouth and to me wasn't DnD. It was just a complex minatures game.

Svaragog

svaragog wrote:Don't blame you Raven one bit. WoTC is a big company and can order a cease and dessist if anything we do impinges on their turf. Concepts can also be targeted, espcially if its something not open content. It's best to come up with something original that fits with the style and feel of Appendix N and DCC overall.

Besides 4th ed really left a sour taste in my mouth and to me wasn't DnD. It was just a complex minatures game.

Svaragog

+1

Ah, the good ol' anti-WotC sentiment.

4E is just another game. It has its pros and cons. It won't burn you during your sleep simply because you read it.

Sarcasm aside, I'm sure you're letting yourself be inspired by games you read and played throughout your life. We are, as one philosopher put it, the sum of our experiences. Allowing yourself to read another source that did something along the lines of what you wish to do might provide some insight on what you wish and don't wish to do for this houserule.

You OBVIOUSLY would not be copying their IP rights, since (a) your rules are likely to be different anyway and (b) the DCC games rules differ at the outset. Copyright is based on reproduction of copyrighted material at least in part. (I work in IP.) Of course, this is not what you'd be doing.

Anyway, do as you wish. All I was saying is that they had good idea that could inspire you, you're of course free to ignore them.

Peace,

Sky

I would be more inclined to mix and match class features as I see fit than come up with a rule for doing this stuff. I often find players don't want the whole class they're branching into anyway. So, for example, a Warrior who wants to learn magic will stunt his deeds die (the die only increases every two levels) in exchange for learning half the number of spells of a Wizard. He still gets Spellburn, but because he's not a true Wizard, he casts on a d16 or never gets to add a caster level to the roll.

Skyscraper wrote:Ah, the good ol' anti-WotC sentiment.

Nah. I wish them well. And I hope 5e does well enough to generate some kick-ass adventures I can revise for DCC.

You OBVIOUSLY would not be copying their IP rights

YOU think that, but WotC has an obligation to their shareholders to protect their IP, and I would not want to cause anyone there a lost night's sleep. Back in the days when 3e was the hottest thing on the market, publishers advised using the SRD instead of the books when developing new products, simply because it would make things clearer should any complications arise. I think that was wise advice then, and I'd like to stick to it now.

Besides, I think my planned solution of half-levels should work well within the context of the DCC rpg.

RC

Vanguard wrote:I would be more inclined to mix and match class features as I see fit than come up with a rule for doing this stuff. I often find players don't want the whole class they're branching into anyway. So, for example, a Warrior who wants to learn magic will stunt his deeds die (the die only increases every two levels) in exchange for learning half the number of spells of a Wizard. He still gets Spellburn, but because he's not a true Wizard, he casts on a d16 or never gets to add a caster level to the roll.

My half-level idea would be something like that. DCC is front-loaded, so that letting a player get everything they would as a Warrior, Wizard, and Cleric (say) would make the character far more powerful than his other third level peers. In my scheme, you get something less than what you would get at 1st level. You lose power for versatility.

I will post more anon, when I am ready, and let the material go through a peer review process before submitting to Crawl!.

Alrighty, points taken.

Good luck in your multiclass design!

Sky

Skyscraper wrote:Alrighty, points taken.

Good luck in your multiclass design!

Sky

Thanks for not taking offence. Personally, I am not a fan of 4e, but I know that it did exactly what the designers hoped it would do...from that perspective, it is a great design. Just not one for me. Certainly, the discussions of game design that centred around 4e (back when it was being designed) really made me think about games in a more complex way that I had previously. And, as far as WotC goes, I cannot feel too bad about the company that gave us the OGL, and, by extension, made my game of choice possible!

I'd just rather avoid any potential legal pitfalls if I can. And, maybe I am being foolish here, but it seems more foolish to me to put my foot into what seems like a potential problem.

Daniel

My first thought is that the character choosing ant alternate class gets the base new hit points from their base class, but one single advantage (as though level one) from the alternate class. Spells would be only a single new spell, not four. A warriors hit points die is a class feature for the level in which it is taken only.
They don't get the advantages of going up a level in their own class. Future additional levels give the expected incremental bonus up from level one, plus one more class feature of the alternate class.

Character level for advancement is the sum of their class levels, for each class power it is the individual class level. The total levels in alternate classes can't exceed the base class level.

Example:
A Level 1 wizard decides to multi into fighter. He opts for Mighty Deeds. He may now roll the mighty deeds die in combat as a level1 fighter and do Deeds. He still rolls d4 for hit points and on the wizard crit table. He gets no new spells, and his spell check is based on being a level 1 Wizard. Hie is level 2. At the nextlevel he must take base class, so goes to Level 2 Wizard effects.

Obviously you'd want to chart out all the specific available powers and what you get, but I think this basic philosophy can work.

I would change their hit dice to be an average of the two. Examples:

Cleric + Thief = d7
Cleric + Warrior = d10
Cleric + Wizard = d6

Thief + Warrior = d9 (roll 1d10, ignoring results above 9)
Thief + Wizard = d5

Warrior + Wizard = d8

I might be better to not bother. Instead create a new class. This prevents min maxing and keeps the flavor of the game intact. Conan as written has no character class, hes Conan. All of the N type material is not based on game terms but story needs. Creating a class gives the Gm control, cuts off abuse from players and allows the Gm to balance the class versus the rest. A non thief, or fighter, or wizard would never be stronger than, or allowed to be stronger than the core class.

My 2C

Ken

I simply don't like the idea of multi-classing in DCC RPG.

Multi-classing is what made D&D 3e such a bore/rule-lawyers heaven.

That said, home-brew rules are the special spice that make a good rpg campaign a GREAT one.
So do as you wish!

Gary Gygax in 2004 or so:

"GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games? (3rd ed)

Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."

Quode wrote:I might be better to not bother. Instead create a new class.

This is the route I would go as well. I am not a fan of multi-classing at all.