On OD&D Multiclassing

[hedgehobbit]

I don't consider these to be house rules, just my interpretation of how multiclassing worked in OD&D. I understand that others might have different interpretations considering how poorly worded the OD&D rules are regarding this.

-Anyone can multiclass at any time. You don't need to declare it at character creation although you can if you want. Characters gaining a new class during play should have a good in-game justification for it. 

-Use the best stat/bonus from among all your classes; saving throws, to-hit, and hit dice. If you are re-rolling hit points, do so whenever you gain a level in any class, otherwise just keep track of the highest hit dice from among your classes.

-XP isn't split evenly but based on the behavior of the character. It doesn't have to be exact so, for a two-class character you might have one class given all the XP, 2/3rds to one and 1/3rd to the other, or split 50/50. Close enough is close enough.

-To discourage level dipping, you might want to make a character gaining a new class spend an entire session gaining no XP with only minor benefits from his new class; MUs cast only Read Magic or use scroll/wands of 2rd level spells or less, Clerics have reduced turn undead (skeleton 9, zombie 11), or thief skills at -5%. 

[Von]

Plenty of people are dilettantes with a little expertise in a given area that might normally be considered a skilled profession. I am a lousy artist but I can paint miniatures with sufficient competence that people have paid me to do so; I am a trained writer and also educator. Such a dilettante character might well have the flexibility that comes with level 1 of this, 2 in that and 2 in the other, but will be hamstrung by the lower rate at which they accumulate XP in any class (in much the same way that a dilettante in a field will seldom achieve what a dedicated specialist could manage and often spend their life knocking about not achieving very much).

It's the sort of thing that could be handled by a skill mechanic if you have one, but that way lies 3e and madness. I think level dipping has a place to represent a particular kind of fickle, flittersome ne'er-do-well.

[scottanderson]

Although I often disagree with the conclusions Hedgehobbit makes, I have great respect for the ideas he thinks up and writes about; for his process of reasoning through those ideas; and for his conclusions. It also helps that he's ubiquitous in the OSRsphere so i get to see what he has to say a lot.

In my opinion, one of the benefits of playing a Man is that you can be any class and rise to any level. Adding a second class is nice too. I decided that I won't be using the rule where one needs a high prime requisite in his new class to dual class- anyone can do it- but you can't switch back. That is enough of a restriction I think that it will make Man players think very hard about switching classes.

[finarvyn]

In many of my campaigns I base XP advancement on sessions played instead of monster kills, so often I use a common advancement chart (typically that of the Fighting Man) rather than have each class have its own chart. In such campaigns I tell players they can add a second class at any time and with little restriction. The XP to achieve a given number of total levels is the same for all characters, regardless of whether they are adding a new one in their primary or secondary class.

For example, a group of 4th level characters advances to 5th level. This means that each character could split class levels as 5/0 or 4/1 or 3/2.

I find that this is particularly nice in certain campaigns where I want to emphasize a certain feel to the setting. For example, in my Middle-earth games I like to say that Magic-user can never be more than 50% of the levels taken in order to simulate Tolkien's low-magic world. Or in a Harry Potter world I might say that Magic-user has to be 50% or more, and maybe force a multi-class with fighter or thief to make characters more well-rounded.

[scottanderson]

Mar 26, 2015 13:52:38 GMT -5 finarvyn said:

In many of my campaigns I base XP advancement on sessions played instead of monster kills, so often I use a common advancement chart (typically that of the Fighting Man) rather than have each class have its own chart. In such campaigns I tell players they can add a second class at any time and with little restriction. The XP to achieve a given number of total levels is the same for all characters, regardless of whether they are adding a new one in their primary or secondary class.

For example, a group of 4th level characters advances to 5th level. This means that each character could split class levels as 5/0 or 4/1 or 3/2.

I find that this is particularly nice in certain campaigns where I want to emphasize a certain feel to the setting. For example, in my Middle-earth games I like to say that Magic-user can never be more than 50% of the levels taken in order to simulate Tolkien's low-magic world. Or in a Harry Potter world I might say that Magic-user has to be 50% or more, and maybe force a multi-class with fighter or thief to make characters more well-rounded.

This is how they do it in 3e and 5e.