Regarding Multi/Dual-Classing and THAC0/Saving Throws

[VoxRationis]

Am I right in reading the rules (90s era printing, 2nd ed AD&D) as having multi- or dual-classed characters only take the better of their two THAC0 scores, not adding or combining them in any way? That is to say, a 5/5 fighter/mage only has the THAC0 of a 5th level fighter?

[CE DM]

correct, take the better THACO or individual saving throw #'s.

dual class is a bit different actually, one tries to to use anything but HP from the old class until the new one exceeds the old, save in dire circumstance, as using the old class hurts or negates XP gain. dual class is best left unused until everyone has become familiar & skilled at the game. Multi class should be the norm for those wanting class combos.

[Chronos]

Keep in mind that it does not work like 3rd edition, where everyone levels up at once and then decides what class to take for that level. With the way the XP tables work out, a 5/5 fighter/mage is probably in a party with folks of about 6th level, 7th at the most. So he'll be worse at fighting than a pure fighter, because of being part mage, but he won't be very much worse.

[VoxRationis]

correct, take the better THACO or individual saving throw #'s.

dual class is a bit different actually, one tries to to use anything but HP from the old class until the new one exceeds the old, save in dire circumstance, as using the old class hurts or negates XP gain. dual class is best left unused until everyone has become familiar & skilled at the game. Multi class should be the norm for those wanting class combos.

Yeah, I saw that bit. Strictly according to rules, though, you can't really choose between dual- and multi-classing. Thanks for clearing up the first thing.

Is there any purpose you particularly favor dual-classing for?

[Khedrac]

Is there any purpose you particularly favor dual-classing for?

Getting to Bard (which requires dual-classing Fighter, Rogue and Druid, though one gets Bard not Druid).

Actually the one other use that used to get talked about back when I played 1st Ed AD&D was taking one level of fighter (for the hp, though ranger might make more sense) and then dual classing to the actual main class. I never saw anyone use dual-classing in play, I don't think I even ever saw a pre-gen dual-class (not even a bard) for a higher-level one shot.

Edit: General advice : if you want to dual class, don't - find out if your DM will relax the rules on demi-human level limits and multi-class instead.

[CE DM]

Yeah, I saw that bit. Strictly according to rules, though, you can't really choose between dual- and multi-classing. Thanks for clearing up the first thing.

Is there any purpose you particularly favor dual-classing for?

humans! Well, humans with variable class ability (which are common as dirt in fantasy; Conan, Fafhrd & Gray Mouser, etc, etc)

also, whenever tempted by power (& having rolled good stats with 2 or more scores of 17+), I or one might cave!

the "dual class" rules are pretty bad, actually, much of the time I'd say to remove or ignore them entirely. I do have decades of experience playing with them, though, so have seen them used in 1e & 2e many, many times, and even use them as a player myself once in a blue moon.

In 2e, probably most are fighter L7/X or fighter Lx/Y is most useful. priest 3/5/or 7//MU for a load of spells. One can make a "skill monkey" via lots of NWP/WP slots (and lots of 17's for scores). I'd like to say modeling cool concepts, but the bad rules fail on that. Starting as a low level thief & turning to any class but wizard is a massive & permanent handicap, for example, and that's too bad. I/we used it a bit more in 1e AD&D, where there was much more uniformity to the character classes. later 2e products would add in many ways to make a sword swinging wizard, say, so it's far less NEEDED than it was in 1e.

[Jay R]

The only way I would dual class is if we started with a set number of experience points. I would take a dual-class human who had already reached the point where he can use both classes.

Given 50,000 xps, I would seriously consider a character who started as a Fighter, worked to level 4, and then switched to Magic-User. He'd be a Fighter 4/Magic-User 6, and functionally, he would be a wizard with 4d10 + 2d4 hit points, and could use any magic weapon the party found.

[LibraryOgre]

As others have said... Dual-classing was usually what you did to make your character a bit tougher, by taking a couple levels of Fighter, Cleric, or Thief before moving onto another class (a few levels of thief then going into mage, for example, had some good synergy, as did druid to mage).

For the actual numbers used, it got weird. If you were a fighter who dualed to mage, for example, you might continue to level 3 as a Fighter, then switch over to mage. You would still have 3d10+Con HP, but your THAC0 and saves would stay mage until you reached 4th level mage, at which point you'd have 3d10+1d4+Con HP, and the better of Mage or Fighter saves, and the better of Mage or Fighter ThAC0.

[VoxRationis]

Now, would saving throws fall under the same restriction as THAC0 and class abilities, or would they be free from them, in the fashion of HP?

[CE DM]

same thing as THACO

[VoxRationis]

So you lose XP for the adventure if you use your old class's saving throws?

[Lord Torath]

Until your new class level exceeds your old class level, yes.

[hamlet]

It's about changing your career. If you fall back on your old career, you're not training in your new one and not growing.

[CE DM]

It makes no sense, but neither does the THACO part. It IS what the rules say, though.

In any event, even when holding to the bad rules on DC in general, I do allow the kindness of letting the player choose to save & dump that XP on the spot as needed;

EX: a MU, formerly a cleric, gets poisoned; they CAN use the fantastic cleric save vs poison if the MU (terrible) save is not made. EX: players needs a 14, rolls a 11. They had a 10 save as a cleric, so if they "fall back" they can make the save (avoiding death) by sacrificing the XP.

That makes no more sense, but building nonsense upon nonsense is never going to. The AD&D DC really ought be tossed, or totally changed, but even without doing so, some tweaks can help the game actually be played.

[Tanarii]

Dual classing supposedly came about because a Magic-user in one of Gary's campaigns was transported to another world with no magic on it, and so changed to being a Fighter. Later he went back to his world and kept the skills of both classes. I don't know how much of that is a myth though.

Honestly I only ever saw it used for in-game events that caused a character to switch classes, never for power gain. And the stat requirements were always waived. And certainly in a world like Krynn, where Clerics disappeared (and later re-appeared) it makes for a useful 'change of profession' set of rules for those situations.

[CE DM]

Yeah, it was his son, Ernie Gygax who was playing the character, called "Erac's Cousin". Apparently, the no magic land was Barsoom (Mars).

[Knaight]

It's about changing your career. If you fall back on your old career, you're not training in your new one and not growing.

It's a pretty incoherent argument as far as saves and the like are concerned. If you used to be a martial artist (fighting man) and are now a scientist (magic user), you don't suddenly get worse at science because you used your martial artist skills to dodge things one time. Similarly, if you have the various D&D thief skills due to playing a thief, becoming a fighter shouldn't make them magically go away, nor should using them again make your fighting skill magically drop. Skills atrophying over time and getting rusty with disuse is one thing, but the dual classing rules in general make no in game sense, and get particularly weird around saves.

[Tanarii]

The argument isn't that you forget how to use the skills, or get worse at those skills. It's that if you rely on those old profession's skills for the class you've chosen to no longer gain XP in, the one that you've got down pat and have lots of experience in, to solve problems in an adventure, you don't gain any experience towards your new profession, the one that you're trying to get up to snuff in.

Once you're better at the new profession than the old profession, using the old skills doesn't get in the way of the new learning any more.

Remember, in AD&D & BECMI you only get XP for adventures (typically meaning 'dungeons', but also later wilderness adventures). The only way to get better is to use your new skills on adventures. The reasoning is pretty simple: using your old class gets in the way of earning XP for your new class.

And yes, those skills include saving throws. The way a Magic-user and a Fighter and a Cleric all resist a Spell or Breath Weapon is supposed to be based on different methods.

(I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning. But it's what the reasoning is.)

[Knaight]

The argument isn't that you forget how to use the skills, or get worse at those skills. It's that if you rely on those old profession's skills for the class you've chosen to no longer gain XP in, the one that you've got down pat and have lots of experience in, to solve problems in an adventure, you don't gain any experience towards your new profession, the one that you're trying to get up to snuff in.

Sure, and the concept where you willingly choose to do worse at the same skill (a save) makes zero sense there, which is where it pretty much turns into getting worse. What is actually modeled by dual classing and what is supposed to be modeled by dual classing are two very different things.

[Tanarii]

Sure, and the concept where you willingly choose to do worse at the same skill (a save) makes zero sense there, which is where it pretty much turns into getting worse.

Why does it make zero sense? They're assumed to be complete different avoidance/defensive techniques, even though the accomplish the same result.

And the character, at least in theory, should know that if he depends on his old defensive techniques in a difficult spot, he won't ever learn to use the new ones properly. Because it's an observable result of the application of those defensive techniques (or other class features) preventing him from getting better at the new class features. So he has non-meta reasons to keep trying to use the new (less skilled) defensive techniques.

i just don't think they're very *good* in-game reasons, considering your life is on the line. ;) But they're reasons that are in-game, as opposed to just meta.

And also its make certain assumptions so the in-game world matches the abstract rules, which may not work for all in-game worlds. It's a fair point if that's an issue for you.

[Knaight]

i just don't think they're very *good* in-game reasons, considering your life is on the line. ;) But they're reasons that are in-game, as opposed to just meta.

Putting aside the matter of how different these defenses would even be, they're so bad that it comes across less as plausible in game reasons and more as a desperate attempt to paper over the meta of what was a pretty bizarre mechanic to begin with. On top of that, unless they are using the old techniques every time and not mixing new and old (which isn't a safe assumption), the old techniques aren't really going to get in the way.