Some d&d questions for a noob

[WolvesbaneIII]

Never played it, but it seems interesting. I guess this would be a odd ball question thread.

for starters, what are the max amount of cross classing? I saw nale had like 3 classes, so I"m guessing that doesn't break the rules. I'm guessing xp is cut if you do cross classing, so thats not exactly ideal, but what are the max job classes you can have?

My one friend invited me to play some time, so some advice from seasoned pros would be great.

[Satinavian]

D&D has many editions. Those have very different rules. If you want to prepare for a game with a friend, you should ask which edition is used there, otherwise rule advice might be pretty misleading.

Oots is based on D&D 3.5. There is no limit to multiclassing in that edition, instead each time you get a level, you can choose which class it will be. There are some rules about getting less xp if you multiclass and the levels in your classes are too uneven and also your classes don't match race expectations, but that can usually be avoided with some planning.

[MeimuHakurei]

In all editions of D&D where multiclassing is possible (so, 3.5 and 5e), you can have as many classes as you have levels to spend.

In D&D 3.5, Multiclassing only gives you an exp penalty if your classes are more than 1 level apart. Your race does have a favored class, however, which is completely ignored for this penalty.

Example: If Nale (human) were a Sorcerer 4/Fighter 2/Rogue 1, he'd not get any multiclass penalties. As a human, any class can be his favored class, which in this case is Sorcerer, so its levels are ignored for multiclass penalties. Fighter and Rogue are only 1 level apart, so no penalties there either. Later, if he were to go Sorcerer 5/Fighter 3/Rogue 1 at 9th level, the Sorcerer class would still be ignored, but now Fighter and Rogue levels are no longer "adjacent"; thus, he'd take a 20% penalty to all exp obtained.

In 5e, there's no more penalty in exp if you Multiclass - but you do have to have at least a 13 in the class' core stat in order to multiclass into it.

[noob]

In all editions of D&D where multiclassing is possible (so, 3.5 and 5e), you can have as many classes as you have levels to spend.

In D&D 3.5, Multiclassing only gives you an exp penalty if your classes are more than 1 level apart. Your race does have a favored class, however, which is completely ignored for this penalty.

Example: If Nale (human) were a Sorcerer 4/Fighter 2/Rogue 1, he'd not get any multiclass penalties. As a human, any class can be his favored class, which in this case is Sorcerer, so its levels are ignored for multiclass penalties. Fighter and Rogue are only 1 level apart, so no penalties there either. Later, if he were to go Sorcerer 5/Fighter 3/Rogue 1 at 9th level, the Sorcerer class would still be ignored, but now Fighter and Rogue levels are no longer "adjacent"; thus, he'd take a 20% penalty to all exp obtained.

In 5e, there's no more penalty in exp if you Multiclass - but you do have to have at least a 13 in the class' core stat in order to multiclass into it.

You can even have one more class than levels thanks to risen martyr.

[Yuki Akuma]

In all editions of D&D where multiclassing is possible (so, 3.5 and 5e), you can have as many classes as you have levels to spend.

Hey, hey. Multiclassing was a thing in AD&D 2e, too. And 1e. And... I think earlier than that but I may be misremembering that.

Although back then it was called "dual classing", had weird funky rules about not being allowed to use your old class's abilities if you wanted to get XP, and was only available to humans. Nonhumans got to basically be 'gestalt' characters... which was, confusingly, referred to as "multiclassing".

[johnbragg]

OP: Order of the STick is all based on 3rd edition stuff. As with almost all DMs, there are some things that author Rich Burlew houserules/homebrews (his take on vampires is not D&D canon, etc). So anything you learn about multiclassing from OOTS characters (Nale's 3 classes, Belkar taking a level of Barbarian, Elan taking a level of Cleric, O'Chul having fighter levels before being a paladin) is 3X specific.

In 3rd edition, setting aside minor XP penalties (which a lot of tables did), you could take a different class every level if you wanted to. It's not recommended, as you reach high levels being basically incompetent at a lot of things. But a one- or two-level "dip" can be a good idea--one of my first 3.0 characters was a typical Big Stupid Fighter, except he wasn't actually stupid. So he took classes (DM roleplaying requirement, houserule) and took a level of Wizard at 3rd or 4th and gained a bunch of utility options.

2nd edition had multiclassing, but it was much less flexible. At character creation, you could multi-class, so you were a Fighter-Mage or a Mage-Thief or a Cleric-Mage. (By the books, certain classes couldn't multiclass, so you had to ask your DM to houserule that you could be a Ranger-Thief or Druid-Ranger or Paladin-Bard or whatever.) You divided your XP total in half (or by three if you were a Fighter-Mage-Thief.) Different classes had different XP charts, but most of the time you were a level behind the single-classes party members.

EDIT: 2nd Edition. Now I remember. Dual-classing was a different thing. (Humans only). You started as, say, a Thief and got some levels. Then you decided that being a Thief was no good and you wanted to be, say, a Cleric. What you did was you stopped using your Thief abilities and started over as a 1st-level Cleric. (but you kept your hit points, maybe your THAC0?) When you reached your Thief level in Cleric, you could use your Thief abilities and your Cleric abilities, but you never advanced again as a Thief.

[gooddragon1]

Never played it, but it seems interesting. I guess this would be a odd ball question thread.

for starters, what are the max amount of cross classing? I saw nale had like 3 classes, so I"m guessing that doesn't break the rules. I'm guessing xp is cut if you do cross classing, so thats not exactly ideal, but what are the max job classes you can have?

My one friend invited me to play some time, so some advice from seasoned pros would be great.

Echoing 3.5

No limit to the number of classes you can take, but you probably won't be as strong with more classes than fewer unless you know what you're doing (Incantatrix for example).

Most DMs (?) seem not to enforce the multiclassing penalty for XP in 3.5 either

Saw this one video about "abserd" not sure what edition he was in, but in 3.5 if you wanted to you could just take a level in every class that provides full base attack bonus and still be somewhat useful.

[LibraryOgre]

Echoing 3.5

No limit to the number of classes you can take, but you probably won't be as strong with more classes than fewer unless you know what you're doing (Incantatrix for example).

Most DMs (?) seem not to enforce the multiclassing penalty for XP in 3.5 either

Saw this one video about "abserd" not sure what edition he was in, but in 3.5 if you wanted to you could just take a level in every class that provides full base attack bonus and still be somewhat useful.

I kinda want to see that build, TBH...

[gooddragon1]

I kinda want to see that build, TBH...

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?167981-Could-someone-provide-a-sample-build

About as far as we got on that idea anyway...

[KillianHawkeye]

That was a little easier in 3.0 where several classes were even more front-loaded with class features than their 3.5 counterparts.

[Louro]

My one friend invited me to play some time, so some advice from seasoned pros would be great.
Ask your friend what edition does he run.
If he answers 3rd/3.5 run away as fast as you can.
Best advice ever about d&d. Trust me.

[noob]

Ask your friend what edition does he run.
If he answers 3rd/3.5 run away as fast as you can.
Best advice ever about d&d. Trust me.

I do not see why?
dnd 5e can be played in an equally rudisplorking way with simulacrum chains filling the whole universe in a few weeks with super fast exponential growth and other terrible shenanigans such as coffee-lock who can basically cast spells at will.
editions of dnd older than 3.0 have each spell breaking the world in half on its own and one of them allows gaining level 20 by creating tons of liquid gold(doable at level 1) then giving that gold to an hobo then stealing that hobo and gaining tons of xp through dualclassing.
So if we see dnd the only edition of dnd that is not super broken is dnd 4e and it is still full of builds one shooting everything you meet and comparable stuff.
So dnd 3.0 and 3.5 is not exceptional since dnds before are equally broken and dnds after are very sightly less broken but still broken.
If you do not like dnd 3e it is likely you will like more games that are not dnd at all.

[gooddragon1]

Ask your friend what edition does he run.
If he answers 3rd/3.5 run away as fast as you can.
Best advice ever about d&d. Trust me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. 3.5 is my favorite edition above all others because it is easier to modify than any other (imo). I feel that a system doesn't need to strictly reign in its players (because the dm exists and I don't believe players are as a rule trying to break things, and if they are it should be handled outside of the game imo) so much as provide a framework which 3.5 does. I respect that other players like more structure (4e) or less complicated rules and less defined rules (5e).

[Louro]

My problem with 3.5 is not the munchkin or the max/min. Actually, that's what you need to do if you wanna succeed... specially if you play a monk.

I don't like 3.5 because I like playing roll, and 3.5 is unplayable. Maybe you can argue that, but you can't argue it is not noob-friendly at all.

- I jump from the window to the big lamp holding from the ceiling.
- Do you have the "Errol Flynn maneuver" feat?
- Wut?

[gooddragon1]

My problem with 3.5 is not the munchkin or the max/min. Actually, that's what you need to do if you wanna succeed... specially if you play a monk.

I don't like 3.5 because I like playing roll, and 3.5 is unplayable. Maybe you can argue that, but you can't argue it is not noob-friendly at all.

- I jump from the window to the big lamp holding from the ceiling.
- Do you have the "Errol Flynn maneuver" feat?
- Wut?

"Make a jump check, a melee attack roll, and a reflex save."

Can't argue that it's not noob friendly. That's part of the appeal for me. It's got depth and with so much in there you can mod it without the system dying on you.

[Louro]

"Make a jump check, a melee attack roll, and a reflex save."

Can't argue that it's not noob friendly. That's part of the appeal for me. It's got depth and with so much in there you can mod it without the system dying on you.
Yeah, it is you the one who will die on the system.
5.000 feats!?!?! What a joke.
That's what I dislike the most about 3.5, people getting lost among the numbers. And a clumsy system. Tedious as you gain levels.

And then you also have the character grow issue.
A certain level party could kill entire cities without opposition. A lv 15 fighter could fight an entire army by himself alone without even receiving a scratch.

[gooddragon1]

Yeah, it is you the one who will die on the system.
5.000 feats!?!?! What a joke.
That's what I dislike the most about 3.5, people getting lost among the numbers. And a clumsy system. Tedious as you gain levels.

And then you also have the character grow issue.
A certain level party could kill entire cities without opposition. A lv 15 fighter could fight an entire army by himself alone without even receiving a scratch.

I'll provide an example of my problem with 5e. How would you feel about a +50 to an attack roll at 20th level in 5e?

In 3.5 you can have different balance points. 5e has only one as far as I know. Which is fine for people who like that, but I like options and then I can pick what I want. 4e power points psionics? 2e? 1e? Maybe, I wouldn't know. I'm not going to harsh on your groove man, so you have fun your way and I'll have fun my way.

Also, let's not get too far off topic.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: May I suggest that a thread about "Help me understand this game as I am new" is not the best place for a skirmish in the edition wars?

Basically, Wolvesbane, there's a lot of different versions of this game. I personally own 7 games that are "Dungeons and Dragons", each with their own rulesets that are more or less different from each other. There are something like 10, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple more that I've forgotten (and that also depends on how you chop them up... is Rules Compendium actually different from BECMI? If it's not, do you count 1e and 2e as being different from each other? 3e and 3.5?), plus games that are based on it without necessarily being Dungeons and Dragons (Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, ACKS, Hackmaster, etc.)

People have strong opinions about the different iterations of the game. I personally can't stand 3rd edition, but that doesn't mean it's bad... just a lot I don't like about that version. A *lot* of the fun of any edition comes down to having a good DM who can make the game fun, either because of or in spite of the mechanics.

However, a side effect of that mechanical difference is that a lot of advice that can be given about the game does depend on the edition. If I tell you that dwarves may have a level cap, but that they can eventually use some fighter weapon mastery abilities, that's not very helpful unless you're playing a couple of those editions, because what I said only makes mechanical sense in the context of a game where "dwarf" is a class and "weapon masteries" are special abilities that fighters get as they level up.

Some information is general and evergreen... if you're having trouble roleplaying, pick a couple characteristics of your character and focus on those ("Crog the Barbarian is distrustful of magic and his favorite curse words are 'By my father's sword!'.") But a lot of other things are very edition dependent, and even table-dependent. How do you generate stats? Well, the DM probably has a way he prefers. Heck, even HOW MANY stats there are can be edition and table dependent (how do you feel about having 7 stats, and rolling some of them on 9d6, keep the best 3?).

[Anymage]

I think it's fair to say that somebody inviting a newbie to a D&D table is most likely running either 3.5 or 5e. Luckily, those two editions are rather similar. (There's also Pathfinder and its offshoots, which is basically an outside publisher that tried continuing 3.5 after the official content owner moved on to 4th edition. All that's a story for another time.) Since this is a newbie advice thread that most likely focuses on those two editions, I'll keep it simple.

3.5 especially has a lot of ways to be over- or underpowered. Sometimes unintentionally, other times requiring digging through multiple source books to find poorly written powers or unintended interactions. (In one particularly infamous example, it's possible for a first level character to attain practically infinite stats and supreme godhood.) However, the simple fact that hogging all the spotlight for yourself and stomping over the other player's characters is a jerk move likely to get you disinvited tends to keep people in check. Especially at moderate levels and with moderate optimization, you should be fine.

Multiclassing comes with an opportunity cost, in that you still have the same ultimate level. A fifth level wizard/fifth level fighter will be stronger than either a fifth level wizard or a fifth level fighter, but he'll be in a party with other tenth level characters instead of fifth level ones. While there are times when multiclassing is expected (especially in 3.5, where you could multiclass into certain advanced classed once you met prerequisites), a single classed character is generally easier to wrap your head around and play.

If you have the opportunity to, find out what everybody else is playing. If everybody is playing hyper optimized builds, you'll probably want old hats to help you build something on their level. If they aren't, you'll probably want to ignore the old hats who compulsively optimize. Aiming for the same general level as the rest of the table is more conductive to healthy long-term play than trying to beat them.

[Bronk]

In D&D 3.5, Multiclassing only gives you an exp penalty if your classes are more than 1 level apart. Your race does have a favored class, however, which is completely ignored for this penalty.

Also, there's no multiclassing penalty when taking prestige classes.

[Endarire]

@OP: If you're talking D&D video games, some have a maximum number of classes a character can simultaneously be due to technical limits.

[WolvesbaneIII]

The Mod Wonder: May I suggest that a thread about "Help me understand this game as I am new" is not the best place for a skirmish in the edition wars?

Basically, Wolvesbane, there's a lot of different versions of this game. I personally own 7 games that are "Dungeons and Dragons", each with their own rulesets that are more or less different from each other. There are something like 10, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a couple more that I've forgotten (and that also depends on how you chop them up... is Rules Compendium actually different from BECMI? If it's not, do you count 1e and 2e as being different from each other? 3e and 3.5?), plus games that are based on it without necessarily being Dungeons and Dragons (Pathfinder, Castles and Crusades, ACKS, Hackmaster, etc.)

People have strong opinions about the different iterations of the game. I personally can't stand 3rd edition, but that doesn't mean it's bad... just a lot I don't like about that version. A *lot* of the fun of any edition comes down to having a good DM who can make the game fun, either because of or in spite of the mechanics.

However, a side effect of that mechanical difference is that a lot of advice that can be given about the game does depend on the edition. If I tell you that dwarves may have a level cap, but that they can eventually use some fighter weapon mastery abilities, that's not very helpful unless you're playing a couple of those editions, because what I said only makes mechanical sense in the context of a game where "dwarf" is a class and "weapon masteries" are special abilities that fighters get as they level up.

Some information is general and evergreen... if you're having trouble roleplaying, pick a couple characteristics of your character and focus on those ("Crog the Barbarian is distrustful of magic and his favorite curse words are 'By my father's sword!'.") But a lot of other things are very edition dependent, and even table-dependent. How do you generate stats? Well, the DM probably has a way he prefers. Heck, even HOW MANY stats there are can be edition and table dependent (how do you feel about having 7 stats, and rolling some of them on 9d6, keep the best 3?).

Did I break the rules? I didn't mean to. I'll try to be more careful next time.

All in all some good advice guys. thanks.