Dual-Class training

[Martijn Buijs]

Greetings, ye noblefolk of Electric Ladyland!

In the discussion of dual-class characters in Birthright,
an interesting question came up: how long does it take to
become a 1st-level member of the new class? I thought about
it and here's what I think.

Fighter should be the easiest class to become. There is
little difference between a 0th-level soldier and a first-
level fighter. All the fighter has to pick up is training
in wearing heavy armours (esp if he was a wizard or thief
first) and some rudimentary training with all weapons to
become familiar with them (to get the -2 nonproficiency
penalty instead of the one of his first class). As the
character will not get new proficiency slots until he
exceeds his former level, specialization is not something
that must be learned then.
Adventuring characters that are often in combat should
not need more than about one month of drilling by a
weaponsmaster to become a fighter. But it will be fun
to play up on this period - being bullied around by
a drill-sergeant, who has little to no respect for the
fact you are the king - he's the master here - and col-
lapsing beneath the weight of that heavy chainmail coat
in the mud...
So, all that has to be done is expending one character
action of training.

Thief characters are a step further from the 0-th level
masses, for they have certain special abilities others
do not, and they receive the bonus nonweapon proficiency
of Thieves Cant, all of which must be learned and trained.
Additional weapons training might also be necessary if the
character was a wizard first.
In order to become a thief, I suggest evening after evening
of frequenting seady taverns, spying on courtiers, roughin'
it with the members of the thieves' guild etc. I'm not sure
how to translate this into game terms but I think that an
adventure action each season for two consecutive seasons
should be enough.

Priest characters must learn to wield the powers of their god
and 'learn the gospel'. This is an arduous task and will take
much time. At the very least, the character will stay in a
monastery for a full year before he can wield the power of a
first level priest, but this could be much longer, say a year
or three. In all of this time he cannot concern himself with
anything but his training.
Notice that it makes it a little less appealing for a regent
to become a priest - he must miss 12+ actions!

And wizardry, finally, is the highest calling on Cerilia. This
should take years and years of study and initiation. An extre-
mely talented character might become a magician in three years,
but becoming a true mage, one of the few dozen in Cerilia, should
take no less than five years of uninterrupted studying, and per-
haps much more.

What I have left out of this is the ruler aspect of a class: fighters
can lead law and armies as no other (if they are blooded), and priests
can sway the masses with their fiery sermons. This will make becoming
a regent in that class even harder. Therefore, while three years to
become a magician may seem long, it is easier than becoming a regent
priest with all of its responsibilities. And in the rare event a cha-
racter switches to Bard, it will also take a long time - the standard
bard receives no less than 4 bonus nonweapon proficiencies.

I enjoy dual-classing, and don't think the rules are bad as they are.
But becoming a first-level member of a class SHOULD take some time.

The dearest character I ever had (and still have) is a Rjurik ranger
I now am playing. I plan to switch to bard once I have reached level
13. The odds of rolling up a character with the scores required for
that are about 0,018% or so, but the DM was kind enough to give them
to me just like that. I'm not blooded as a compensation. But this
gives me as a player a long-term perspective on my character and her
abilities. The ranger 13/bard 13 can do all the things I like, without
unbalancing the game.

Please let me hear what you think about this.
Martijn

[Gary V. Foss]

- --------------876770BEF741B60AC8574A74
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Martijn Buijs wrote:

> In the discussion of dual-class characters in Birthright,
> an interesting question came up: how long does it take to
> become a 1st-level member of the new class? I thought about
> it and here's what I think.

Back in the day, there was a character class called the Cavalier. Well, most
of the stuff in Unearthed Arcana has since now been buried. The Cavalier
class, however, had an interesting twist in it. Characters could start at
0-level with a negative number of experience points and earn experience to
become first level. It seems to me there was also a Dragon magazine article to
this effect as well. Characters could begin as 0-level Magic-Users, Thieves,
etc. and earn enough to become first level. I would suggest this as a means of
changing character classes for characters who wish to become dual classed.

The way I'd handle it is that a character who switches classes begins at
0-level. Since the experience point requirements roughly double for each
experience level, we can extrapolate that it would require half the number of
experience points to reach first level as it does to reach 2nd. Here's a
chart:

Class Starting Exp.
Fighter -1,000
Paladin/Ranger -1,125
Wizard -1,250
Priest -750
Druid -1,000
Rogue -625

This would solve the problem with characters changing classes "instantly" which
seems to make such little sense and also allow for role-playing opportunities
as the character would have to adventure in order to reach first level.

As far as starting abilities for Wizards, Priests, Druids and Rogues are
concerned, that gets a little harder. I'd give a 0-level priest only a single
1st level spell. A character beginning a 2nd career as a Priest would have to
have a 17 Wisdom right? You could just give that character his/her Wisdom
bonus.. Rogues should get 30 points to apply to their thieving skills and
another 30 when they reach first level. Bards should get no spells, and knock
off 5 percentage points off of their abilities, maybe half range on their
inspirational abilities, etc.

Wizards are a bigger problem though. If you give them a single first level
spell then there is really no difference between a 0-level wizard and a
1st-level one, right? A specialist Wizard gets two first level spells to cast,
so a 0-level specialist should get one, provided it is taken in the
specialist's school. But what about Mages?

Personally, I don't much like cantrips. They just seem kind of obnoxious and
useless to me. I suppose you could give a 0-level Mage a cantrip or two to
cast, but it seems rather pointless, doesn't it? How about a single 1st level
spell but the target gets a +3 to save? Anybody have a better idea?

Gary

- --------------876770BEF741B60AC8574A74
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Martijn Buijs wrote:
In the discussion of dual-class characters in Birthright,
an interesting question came up: how long does it take to
become a 1st-level member of the new class? I thought about
it and here's what I think.
Back in the day, there was a character class called the Cavalier. 
Well, most of the stuff in Unearthed Arcana has since now been buried. 
The Cavalier class, however, had an interesting twist in it.  Characters
could start at 0-level with a negative number of experience points and
earn experience to become first level.  It seems to me there was also
a Dragon magazine article to this effect as well.  Characters could
begin as 0-level Magic-Users, Thieves, etc. and earn enough to become first
level.  I would suggest this as a means of changing character classes
for characters who wish to become dual classed.

The way I'd handle it is that a character who switches classes begins
at 0-level.  Since the experience point requirements roughly double
for each experience level, we can extrapolate that it would require half
the number of experience points to reach first level as it does to reach
2nd.  Here's a chart:

        Class               
Starting Exp.
    Fighter                   
- -1,000
    Paladin/Ranger       
- -1,125
    Wizard                   
- -1,250
    Priest                     
- -750
    Druid                     
- -1,000
    Rogue                    
- -625

This would solve the problem with characters changing classes "instantly"
which seems to make such little sense and also allow for role-playing opportunities
as the character would have to adventure in order to reach first level.

As far as starting abilities for Wizards, Priests, Druids and Rogues
are concerned, that gets a little harder.  I'd give a 0-level priest
only a single 1st level spell.  A character beginning a 2nd career
as a Priest would have to have a 17 Wisdom right?  You could just
give that character his/her Wisdom bonus..  Rogues should get 30 points
to apply to their thieving skills and another 30 when they reach first
level.  Bards should get no spells, and knock off 5 percentage points
off of their abilities, maybe half range on their inspirational abilities,
etc.

Wizards are a bigger problem though.  If you give them a single
first level spell then there is really no difference between a 0-level
wizard and a 1st-level one, right?  A specialist Wizard gets two first
level spells to cast, so a 0-level specialist should get one, provided
it is taken in the specialist's school.  But what about Mages?

Personally, I don't much like cantrips.  They just seem kind of
obnoxious and useless to me.  I suppose you could give a 0-level Mage
a cantrip or two to cast, but it seems rather pointless, doesn't it? 
How about a single 1st level spell but the target gets a +3 to save? 
Anybody have a better idea?

Gary

- --------------876770BEF741B60AC8574A74--

[James Ruhland]

Personally, I don't much like cantrips. They just seem kind of obnoxious
and
useless to me. I suppose you could give a 0-level Mage a cantrip or two to
cast, but it seems rather pointless, doesn't it? How about a single 1st
level
spell but the target gets a +3 to save? Anybody have a better idea?


Well, cantrips were initially invented way back in the Midieval period of
AD&D (you got your Ancient period, your Classical period, your Midieval
period, Renaissance, Modern, and I suppose Post-WOC now AD&D). They were
invented presicely for these "0-level Mages". They used to be more
detailed/numerous than the 1st level Cantrip spell. But of course they're
fairly pointless.
IMO, the best thing to do would be to give this dude nothing, send him out
with his dagger (or quarterstaff) and let him get killed off quickly. Or he
could go with his other party members and huddle in the rear, taking exps
for the monsters they killed*.

*reminds me of a "trick"/cheat that was possible in Curse of the Azure
Bonds for just this type of situation. You'd enter one of thouse "random
monster" dongeons, the dude(ssa) who was dual-classing would hang back &
let the other party members kill off the undead dragon (or whatever), then
you'd have thouse characters, the ones who did all the work, flee the
battlefield. Presto-chango, your dual-classer would get all the exp without
needing to break a nail *smile*.

So, IMO, the best thing to do is to be irrational; have the player use an
action (or two, or three) on Training, then emerge as a 1st level whatever,
dual-classing. I know that it doesn't represent the years of training even
a 1st level fighter supposedly went through (as a page, then squire, or
whatever), but it's better for gameplay, IMO; better for fun.
even making 'em start at -1,000 exp prolly won't be much of a sacrifice.
Say the rest of the party is circa 7th level. They'll all adventure
together. The dual-classer has whatever HP their (prolly also 7th level)
previous class gave them, and should be well protected. How long will it
take to gain 1,000 exp? Two adventures? One? Part of an adventure?

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Martijn Buijs wrote:

> ... how long does it take to become a 1st-level member of the new class?
> I thought about it and here's what I think.
>
> Fighter should be the easiest class to become. (...) All the fighter has
> to pick up is training in wearing heavy armours ... and some rudimentary
> training ...

I was offended! To me the fighter is so much more than this. This sounds
to me like a thief just took the "Thug" kit.

> Adventuring characters that are often in combat (...cont)

Sorry to interupt mid-sentence, but this I like. Role-play should be a
determinating factor.

> should not need more than about one month of drilling by a weaponsmaster
> to become a fighter.

This thouroghly dismissed my favorite class. It sounds like those
correspondence schools advertised on TV "learn a trade at home". Fencers,
judo practitioners, wrestlers, where are you?

> Thief characters are a step further from the 0-th level masses...

I happen to see it the other way round.
Rather than go into the priest and wizard, suffice it to say a player's
vision of the class has alot to do with how long they feel should be
right.

> I enjoy dual-classing, and don't think the rules are bad as they are.
> But becoming a first-level member of a class SHOULD take some time.

This should be the hurdle, IMHO its the gap between 0-level and 1st level
in any class that really counts. I have a tendency to disparage thieves
as the most mundane (least fantastic) class. To me fighters are heroic
figures with the potential to Heraklian feats, not some chuckle-head who
picked up a sword.

Once when I was playing a Ranger myself, (Martijn mentioned a Ranger) I
told the DM I wanted to sneak into an enemy camp. He said only thieves
can sneak. I argued, I was a hunter, spy, &c I snuck up on dear, I could
sneak into a camp. He said no.

To me, sneaking is a mundane skill. I sneak in RL. I did quite alot of
sneaking as a boy. Anyone can sneak. I brought this up with a friend
outside the game, who agreed, but in such a way as to restore to the thief
a margin of the fantastic. He pointed out that anyone could sneak, I was
right, but subject to observation by others. I was quite, hiding, but not
"silent as the wind" &c. So I under-estimated the specialness of the
theif.

I feel like you're under-estimating the specialness of the fighter.

BTW as a result of my sneaking experience I adopted the following rule for
my own campaign:
add two proficencies- move silently and hide in shadows.
Any player can take them, they are free to rogues, rangers, and some kits.
(the rural/urban divide must be observed) Both are DEX w/ no modifier.
Prof checks may always be made with a -5 penaty if the charater does not
posses the proficency. The range of tasks attempted should reflect the
level of skill, however.

You want to sneak? Roll against one of them, which ever is most
applicable, both are only required under unusual circumatsnces (sneaking
past alert guards). If you succede, the potential observer still gets an
alertness or observation prof check. Failing to sneak is failure, you
alerted the obeserver. If you pass your success roll by more than the
observer passed his, you sneak.

For thieves, and thier fantastic abilities, do as above, however, if the
potential observer wins the above die rolls, the thief might still have
"moved like the wind". Allow the theif skill attempts as normal. Should
the thief succede, only another thief could detect them. A thief observer
gets a hear noise roll, as per thief skills.

Of course thieves could use their fantastic powers first and fall back on
mundane sneaking if their movement is less than wind-like, if it makes you
happy to do it that way.

I came to the conclusion that according to the core-rules, everyone has an
85% chance to move silently, since the chance to hear noise is 15%. Its
determined by race, not class, or proficency. My system replaces that.
(Use racial bonuses to hear noise for potential observers).

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu

[Samuel Weiss]

>> should not need more than about one month of drilling by a weaponsmaster

> to become a fighter.

This thouroghly dismissed my favorite class. It sounds like those
correspondence schools advertised on TV "learn a trade at home". Fencers,
judo practitioners, wrestlers, where are you?<

Depends on what level you consider to be proficient. I can teach you 10
ways to maim someone in less than 10 hours, with high confidence that you
will be able to do so on your own. Bo will take 2-4 months after you know
how to fight passably well with your hands. Sai about the same. But this is
all very basic use level. It is also based on 3 1-hour classes a week. At
10 hours a day, 6-1/2 days a week, assuming basic starting competence on
your part, I could probably take you to a black belt level. And if you are
rich and can afford a cleric to heal up all the bruises and worse you will
get working at that rate, you would even be able to add some real combet
experience in there as well as theory and practice.

Samwise, Nidan, Okinawan Isshinryu Karate-Kobudo

[rad smith]

> This thouroghly dismissed my favorite class. It sounds like those
> correspondence schools advertised on TV "learn a trade at home". Fencers,
> judo practitioners, wrestlers, where are you?

if you practiced every day, you could become a passable foil in a month.
epee a bit longer. sabre about twice as long (it's very technical, but
then i'm biased against it).

of course, modern fencing bears a peripheral relation to actual combat..

- --
rad

i've got my hand in your head
i've got my hand in your head
and i'm pulling out all of your mind

[Daniel McSorley]

From: c558382@showme.missouri.edu
>
>> Fighter should be the easiest class to become. (...) All the fighter has
>> to pick up is training in wearing heavy armours ... and some rudimentary
>> training ...
>
>I was offended! To me the fighter is so much more than this. This sounds
>to me like a thief just took the "Thug" kit.
>
>This thouroghly dismissed my favorite class. It sounds like those
>correspondence schools advertised on TV "learn a trade at home". Fencers,
>judo practitioners, wrestlers, where are you?
>
I have to agree with Kenneth here. Sure, any moron can swing an ax*,
but to be a fighter is a bit more. The warriors have training not only in
hacking, they have some level of experience with all types of weapons, hence
their smaller non-proficient penalty. They also have training in armor,
they can utilize all types (you don't just strap it on and expect it to
protect you). Warriorship is also a state of mind. You can know how to
swing a sword, but have you ever actually killed anyone with it? Have you
ever been hit, hard, by someone attempting to hurt you, or have you just
practiced? Do you accept the fact that your chosen profession can lead to
your death, at almost any time? Warriorship is a completely different
mindset from any of the other classes, and from any of the unclassed as
well. If you can't answer these, then you haven't had the neccessary
training to become duel classed.
Other point: warriors take more xp to raise a level than rogues,
implying that their training is more rigorous and demanding. Also, they
have different saving throws, representing different mindsets and reflexes
than other classes. And who uses d6 hit dice besides rogues? Regular
people.
Not to dis the fencers of the world, I fence sabre myself, but modern
fencing is a sport, not a fighting style. Scoring points, on a narrow
track, using only particular strikes and parts of the blade has _nothing_ to
do with combat efficacy. It's still fun, but it's not fighting.


*Like the comic in the recent Dragon, a knight is talking to the secretary
at a temp agency, and she says, "Let me make sure I have this... You want
400 large men, antisocial tendencies a plus, some experience with swinging
bats or axes neccessary" or something like that, good stuff...

Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu
ICQ:5299865
AIM:DanMcS