| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 27 Nov 2002 : 18:40:21
quote:
Originally posted by Echon
- Demihumans.
One thing I have never understood is why humans are only allowed to duel-class and demihumans are only allowed to multi-class (besides single-classing). There isn't even a good explanation as to why. Currently I have allowed all races to do both. Comments?
You're not the only one. I've never been fully able to accept the 'official' reasoning behind the multi-/dualclassing rules. If one talks about a character class as a dedicated career, then the dualclass rules make some sense. However there is so much grey area between for instance a roguish Fighter and a warrior-like Rogue. Do their careers differ that much... I can't see they do. Then why not multiclassing... beats me. Supposedly this had to do with balancing the inherent racial abilities of the non-humans versus the humans. However in the same book the claim is made that humans are the most flexible and adaptable of all races... wouldn't that hint at multiclassing?
quote:
Class combinations. If a dwarf can be a thief and a cleric, why can't he be a cleric/thief when a gnome can? How come elves have no cleric multi-class combinations? Why can't an elf be a necromancer or an abjurer (I know, their frail bodies cannot contain the energies but I fail to see the difference between an elven abjurer and an elven mage memorizing only abjurations spells. It is one of worst explanations I have ever seen. If they cannot contain or control such spells how can they cast them at all?)
I'll refer back to my first response on your post. 2e was/is more about what you cannot do with a character then what you can't do without providing explanations. Luckily the new edition has thrown these limits overboard. |
| 1 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Echon |
Posted - 27 Nov 2002 : 19:29:46
quote:
Originally posted by Mumadar Ibn Huzal
You're not the only one. I've never been fully able to accept the 'official' reasoning behind the multi-/dualclassing rules. If one talks about a character class as a dedicated career, then the dualclass rules make some sense. However there is so much grey area between for instance a roguish Fighter and a warrior-like Rogue. Do their careers differ that much... I can't see they do. Then why not multiclassing... beats me. Supposedly this had to do with balancing the inherent racial abilities of the non-humans versus the humans. However in the same book the claim is made that humans are the most flexible and adaptable of all races... wouldn't that hint at multiclassing?
True. The same goes for demihumans and dual-classing. The Complete Book of Elves has a section of Elven Tales each a morale attached to each of them (silly if you ask me). Well, there is an example of a female elf becomming a very powerful fighter, then she meets a mage who holds her and teaches her something and then she turns to magery. If that is not dual-classing, I do not know what.
quote:
I'll refer back to my first response on your post. 2e was/is more about what you cannot do with a character then what you can't do without providing explanations. Luckily the new edition has thrown these limits overboard.
I even fail to see how changing these rules is in any way unbalancing. Weird.
-Echon |
|
|
