Char Ops in 1st Edition?

[Orion]

Since there's been a lot of discussion of level limits, multiclassing, and disparate XP tables, I thought I'd dig out some examples of putting this all together. I am going to use the following assumptions, which screw players over as much as possible: that we are limited to the PHB and can't use Unearthed Arcana, that none of our stats are above 15, and that multiclass characters must average the HP between their classes. Most people who actually play D&D will have some combination of house rules such as guaranteed high stats, or allowing multiclass characters to use whichever HP progression is better rather than averaging.

• A Dwarf Fighter/Thief is limited to Fighter 7 unless they have high Strength. They reach that cap at 250,000 XP as a Fighter 7/Thief 9 -- equivalent to a Human 9th level Fighter. Compared to the Human, the Dwarf is already a noticeably weaker combatant, with 35 HP rather than 49, +6 to hit rather than +8, and no free castle or army. His level-based saves have suffered: 10/12/11/10/11 instead of 10/9/8/9/11. However, being a Dwarf will give him an average of +3 to save against spells, wands, and poison, which basically makes up for it. In exchange for these numerical disadvantages, he gets Thief skills, Darkvision, and some random bullshit +1 racial enmity bonuses and free languages. It's a trade-off, but a very favorable one in my mind. It's worth noting that few games will ever progress substantially past here.
  
  What happens if we do? Well, when the single-classed Thief finally hits level 13, he'll have better HP and Saves, and equivalent attack bonuses to the Fighter/Thief, making him basically strictly better. However, that doesn't happen until 660,000 XP, which is a long, long way away. A Human Fighter will fairly rapidly get MUCH better HP and saves than the Dwarf, but won't deal substantially more damage in combat until level 13 (1,250,000 XP!). The Dwarf will still have darkvision, thief skills, and access to awesome dwarf-only magic items, and will have acquired a thieve's guild, so even then it's not clear which character is better. Conclusion: A Dwarf Thief eventually becomes almost strictly superior to a Fighter/Thief around 660K, while a Human Fighter continues to fight better but lack thievery-- the same dynamic as before the level cap.
• An Elf Fighter/Magic User caps out as Fighter5/Magic-User 5, when a Human could have been Fighter 6 and an elf or human could be... Magic-User 5. Since Fighters don't even get save progression at 6, it's pretty clear that the multiclass is way better at this point. Unfortunately, life goes downhill pretty quickly. A Human Fighter will hit 7 and get +50% attack speed while the Elf is still 5/5. At this point it's starting to look bad for the Elf, but it's nothing casting Protection from Evil, Strength, and Mirror Image won't fix. Not to mention a racial +1 hit, stealth, and darkvision. The human will hit Fighter 9 for massive HP, saves, and followers when the Elf is 5/8, at which point the Elf should probably give up on trying to compete in melee and console themselves with being an armored caster laying down 4th-level spells. The Elf caps out altogether at Fighter5/Magic-User 9 with 270,000XP, compare Fighter 9 or Magic-user 10. At this point the F/MU is basically trading a few spell slots for armor, darkvision, and charm immunity, which seems well worth it. A Human Magic-User doesn't get higher-level spells than the Elf until level 12 (750,000XP) and even then it's debatable who's better. Conclusion: an Elf Fighter/Magic-User is a credible Fighter until around 250K and a credible caster until 750K.
• Since you're getting the idea, let's do an Elf Magic-User/Thief real quick. They don't cap until Magic-User 9/Thief 11 at 270k, at which time they have basically everything good from both classes. They don't fall behind a spell level until 750K, when a Human Magic-User 12 throws down 6th-level spells and enjoys better saves, while the Elf Magic-User 9/Thief 11 throws down 5th-level spells from stealth, in the dark.Conclusion: An Elf Magic-User/Thief remains viable essentially forever
• An Elf Fighter/Magic-User/Thief doesn't cap anything until 54K, doesn't cap both until 405K, as a Fighter5/Magic-User 9/Thief9. Conclusion: this character kind of sucks, but because of dividing XP, not because of level limits.
• Half-Elves mostly suck compared to real Elves, but they do have the option to splash Cleric. A Half-Elf Mage/Cleric starts sucking as a cleric pretty fast, falling behind by a spell level as early as 55K. So, they're really not so much a Cleric substitute as a Magic-User Variant. They cap out as Cleric5/Mage6, but being able to heal and cast spells in armor is good enough they don't start to feel bad about themselves until a human hits 5th-level spells at 135K. Throwing in Fighter for a triple-threat prevents you from capping out until 120K, although it doesn't actually extend your character's viability by much because Fighter 6 doesn't give you anything a Cleric 10 doesn't already have.
• Half-Elves also have the option to multiclass Ranger, which is OMGWTFBBQ good at low levels. However, they quickly cap out and become noticeably weak quite early. I mention them here only to note that if you are blessed with 17 Strength, you can hit Cleric5/Ranger7, which is a significant milestone that keeps you relevant for a much logner time.
• Halflings are technically allowed to be Fighters, but it's a trap. Just play a straight Thief.
• Gnomes cap out pretty fast, so aren't worth it in a long campaign unless you have a real hard-on for Illusionists.
• A Half-Orc Fighter/Assassin doesn't cap Fighter until 1MillionXP, and remains viable basically forever.

Conclusion: Most multiclass combos available to elves and dwarves (IE "the good races") are not hindered by level limits in any significant way, while Half-Elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs have a smaller number of niche class combos that also appeal.

Longer Conclusions: Assuming PHB-only, no high stats and a very long campaign (1million+) I consider the following characters viable:

Dwarf: Fighter/Thief, Thief
Elf: Fighter/Magic-User, Magic-User/Thief,
Halfling: Thief
Gnome: Thief
Half-Elf: Cleric/Magic-User, Assassin
Half-Orc: Fighter/Assassin
Human: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist, Druid, Cleric, Monk

ETA: Also Human and Half-Elf Bards, of course--though if you have the stats to be one, you're cheating.

If we assume very high stats, some more characters get put on the table:

Elf: Fighter/Thief, Magic-User (displaces Human Magic-User)
Half-Elf: Fighter/Magic-User, Fighter/Magic-User/Cleric, Fighter/Magic-User/Thief
Gnome: Illusionist/Thief

[hogarth]

Longer Conclusions: Assuming PHB-only, no high stats and a very long campaign (1million+) I consider the following characters viable:

Dwarf: Fighter/Thief, Thief
Elf: Fighter/Magic-User, Magic-User/Thief,
Halfling: Thief
Gnome: Thief
Half-Elf: Cleric/Magic-User, Assassin
Half-Orc: Fighter/Assassin
Human: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Magic-User, Illusionist, Druid, Cleric, Monk

[*]In every 1E game I ever played, thieves sucked. They're basically just shitty fighters who can disarm traps. Maybe your DM was generous with the backstabbing rules, but mine sure as hell weren't.
[*]Unless you're starting with a huge number of experience points, monks are terrible. Just really, really awful. They shouldn't be on that list.

[PoliteNewb]

Stuff

I'd call your analysis more or less valid. UA did add some additional options, both by increasing level limits and increasing class and multiclass options.

Dwarf: With nothing above 15, you can hit 9th level as a single-classed fighter (there's followers for you), or C8/F7 (which is pretty damn good)...16 Wis gives you C9, so you can cast 5th level spells.

Elf: UA added the bullshit variety of elves, so this really varies. Let's look at the subraces.

--High Elf: basically, don't be one; Gray elves have the same limits for Fighter and 1 level higher for MU.
--Gray Elf: F/MU is still viable, as is MU/T. If you have a high Int you can hit 13th level as a single-classed MU, so you might want to.
--Wood Elf: you can hit 9th as a single-classed fighter if you have 18 Str, so that might be worth doing. F/MU is decent if you have 18 Str (so you can hit 7th Fighter, but you're limited to 9th MU.
--Drow Elf: females can hit F9 with only 12 Str, and unlimited as Cleric. Males can hit F7/MU12 with no crazy stats, so you want to do that. Basically, these are the best elves.

Gnome: For some reason, gnomes continue to get hosed with incredibly stiff level limits, on pretty much all classes. If you have 18 Int you can reach 9th level Illusionist. And they can be clerics now; a single-classed cleric could get 9th with only mediocre wisdom for some reason. Otherwise, don't play a gnome.

Halfling: I'm tempted to just say, 'don't be a halfling', but a tallfellow with 17 Str can be F7/TU, so that's possible. If you really like being short and having good saves.

Half-elf: Now that elves can be clerics, pretty much inferior to elves in all ways...unless you really want an elf-blood single-class assassin, as their level limit there is 1 higher.

Half-orc: F10/AsnU is still your best bet, but if you have a high Wis F/C or F/Asn is now somewhat viable (you need a 17 Wis to hit C7). Single-fighter can also reach 12th, so that's not bad either.

In every 1E game I ever played, thieves sucked. They're basically just shitty fighters who can disarm traps. Maybe your DM was generous with the backstabbing rules, but mine sure as hell weren't.

There was more than just backstabbing...thieves were basically high utility, especially if you were light on spellcasters. Locks and traps were fucking everywhere, and a lot of times being able to go up a wall could save the party a lot of trouble.
That said, being a multiclass thief is strictly better, in just about all ways except rapid advancement.

Unless you're starting with a huge number of experience points, monks are terrible. Just really, really awful. They shouldn't be on that list.

QFT.
The only other way (if you're playing with crazynuts chargen so you can have a lot of high scores) is to go dual-class monk; Monk --> Magic-user or Fighter --> Monk (hell, Ranger --> Monk; you're going to need 17's in Str, Dex, Con, and Wis anyway) could be viable. But those are some very big "ifs".

[talozin]

[*]Unless you're starting with a huge number of experience points, monks are terrible. Just really, really awful. They shouldn't be on that list.

There's a very narrow window where Monks are pretty decent characters, and it's something like 6-9th level or somewhere in there. Below that and you are absolute ass. Above that and, while you aren't bad in terms of capabilities, it's very much a crapshoot as to whether you'll ever be able to advance another level. Assuming the DM enforces the limits on number of monks of a given level.

On a separate topic, adventures I kind of had fun with:

Low level (1-4)
[*] N1, Against the Cult of the Reptile God, is sort of a D&D version of the alien kidnapping and brainwashing movies. The end boss is quite likely to fuck the entire party's shit right up, however, if they aren't super careful.
[*] B4, The Lost City: players go through an abandoned ziggurat half-buried in the sand and find all kinds of crazy shit inside. Technically this is a Basic module, but they're pretty readily adaptable.
[*] T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil: this is a lot of fun, and if you play through the entire module it will get your party to level 9-11-ish, which frankly is a perfectly respectable endpoint for a whole campaign.
[*] U1-3, Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh/Danger at Dunwater/Final Enemy: The first one is a haunted house/pirates adventure, the second one can be either diplomacy or slaughter, and the third is mostly slaughter.
[*] I3-5, Pharoah/Oasis of the White Palm/Lost Tomb of Martek: a lot of people seem to have a hardon for these three.

Mid-level (5-10):
[*] A1-4, Slave Lords quartet: has been praised already. You'll need to fill in some missing pieces if you don't buy the collection, since they were tournament modules originally and it shows. Skip the railroad ending to the third module and play it out straight unless you really want to piss off your players.
[*] I10, Ravenloft II, The House on Gryphon Hill: I don't like the original Ravenloft much but this is good for the right group. It's a slightly different take on the whole gothic horror genre (more Jekyll and Hyde than Dracula) and it continues the insidious infiltrators motif found in N1, if you're into that.
[*] I12, Egg of the Phoenix: multi-part adventure originally used by RPGA. I like the part where there's an illusionist making undead look semi-normal and hiring them out as slave labor.
[*] WG4, Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun / S4, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth: these two are connected to each other and are very handy thematically if your campaign has some kind of ultimate evil you want your characters to uncover some information on.

High-level (11+):
[*] GDQ1-7: if for some reason your players haven't done them already, doing is is basically obligatory.
[*] WG5, Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure: this is notable mostly for being one of the few high level adventures extant, and not being hopelessly terrible.

Stay the fuck away:
N2 The Forest Oracle, any X series module except "Master of the Desert Nomads" and "Temple of Death", any UK series module (unless your players are into railroady Lewis Carroll-influenced bullshit -- if they are, buy every one of these), C2 Ghost Tower of Inverness, I9 Day of Al'Akbar (unless hilariously racist caricatures of Arabs amuse you), I11 Needle, S2 White Plume Mountain, S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (but should be experienced AS A ONE SHOT by everyone), S1 Tomb of Horrors.

[Orion]

Re: Monks

I was deliberately only talking about who's good at name-level play, when single-classed people are hitting 10 or so, not about earlier levels. That said, I went back and looked at the Monk more closely and realized that actually they suck irredeemably at all levels.

Re: Thieves

Indeed, I'm not a fan of single-classed Thieves in general play situations. They have sucky attack bonuses, mediocre saves, and are generally crap except for dealing with traps. Now, in most AD&D games I've played, having a lockpicker/trapfinder really is a necessity, which I why I highly recommend the Dwarf Fighter/Thief and the Elf Magic-User/Thief as the solution to your trapfinding needs. However, when we look at really high levels Thieves get a little bit wonky. They gain levels so much faster than anyone else that their deficiencies in attacks and saving throws becomes less of an issue. Furthermore, when you look at nonhumans, they are the only class that can advance unlimitedly, which means they eventually subsume all the advantages of the Fighter class.

A Dwarf can be Fighter 7/Thief11, but a Thief 13 actually has the same +to hit, better saves, and more hit points. Essentially the only benefit the Dwarf obtains is increased attack rate, which fighter of any other race don't even get. That's why a single-classed Thief is the best available character in high-level play for most nonhumans.

[Orion]

@PoliteNewb: Thanks for the UA breakdown! I was planning on posting one, but I got confused because I can't find any actually list of allowed multiclass combinations. For instance, an example character is a Dwarf Fighter/Cleric, which is not one of the allows multis in the PHB, so obviously there are some new combos allowed, but I'm not sure on which ones. I can use my knowledge of the 2nd Edition PHB and a little common sense to guess that you probably can't play a Halfling Druid/Thief or an Elf Cavalier/Magic-User, but there's a lot of gray area. 2nd Edition AD&D allows dwarf Fighter/Clerics but not Elf Fighter/Clerics, and yet nothing is said one way or another in UA. Can I be a dwarf Cleric/Thief? Gnome Cleric/Illusionist? I have no idea. And the worst part is, not knowing what combos are allowable also prevents us from knowing what the actual level limit is for SINGLE classes clerics.

@Monks

AD&D Monks look like they start off on stronger footing than the 3E Monk. An AD&D Monk has most Thief skills as a Thief of the same level, notable Open Lock and Disarm Traps. That's huge for dungeoncrawlers, and it means that the Monk gets compared to the Thief in combat contribution instead of to the Fighter. Plus, this is "fuck you" edition, where you would expect a grab-bag of weird immunities and resistances to be super useful. Unfortunately, the Monk still falls down there. Hard. Let us divide Monks into 4 levels bands, "Beginner" (1-5) (Intermediate) 6-9, "Advanced" (10-13) and "Stupid Advanced" (14+) I imagine it's pretty clear to everyone why beginning Monks suck: they're sitting around with no AC bonuses of any kind in a game where a single arrow might take you from full to DEAD. Their unarmed combat is worse than using a mundane weapon, and their selection of mundane weapons suck. A Thief with leather armor and a shortsword is a more credible melee threat. Oh, and to add insult to injury, you level up slower than everyone except Wizards. At level 4 you're finally getting somewhere, with armor equivalent to nonmagic studded leather, an unarmed attack routine better than a nonmagic sword, plus a bunch of modestly useful defensive bennies. On the other hand, the Thief is level 5, giving him noticeably better attack rolls, saves, and HP. And Thief skills.

The Advanced levels are almost as straightforwardly bad, although one has to look up a bunch of tables to see it. Basically, by this point the Thief's stupidly fast level-climbing renders him better than the monk in almost every way. A Thief hits "Name Level" at level 10, when the Monk is still Level 7. Being 3 levels behind means the Monk is now a really crappy Thief substitute--even a Fighter/Thief would actually have higher thief skills at this point. The Thief's AC is probably a little worse, but his HP, BAB, and saves are massively better, and if he has a decent weapon his melee damage is comparable. The Thief also gets to cast spells off scrolls and gets a thieve's guild to boss around. The Monk gets... immunity to disease.

As mentioned upstream, the Intermediate (6-9th) level range is where Monks look like they should be good. After all, they're attacking faster than fighters while getting thief skills, evasion and arrow deflection, and fast movement that, unlike in 3.5, makes a goddamn difference. However even here they are secretly made of shame and failure. In this range their AC is better than most mundane armor, but comparable to magic armor. Their hitpoints are total crap: a Monk has 8d4 when a Fighter has 8d10. Their special defensive abilities basically just make up for that deficiency. Their BAB is so far behind a Fighter's that the extra attacks are balanced out. Basically, while all their key vitals are now in the "tolerable" range, they don't stand out from the crowd in any real way, and that's terrible because Monks don't get any way at all to collect power asymmetrically. A Monk can't hire people to do his dirty work for him, at least outside of very specific restrictions, and can't accumulate wealth anyway. They earn their followers really late, and their followers are a half-dozen fucking 1st-level monks. They can't use poisons and get less benefit than anyone else from rad magic weapons. In short, while a Monk is about as good as a generic Fighter or Thief, they are much worse than a Fighter or Thief leveled by organic play.

"Stupid Advanced" monks are hard to speculate about. First of all, let's be clear: You will never get one. Monks reach level 17 after more than 3 MILLION XP, which theoretically should be almost doubled because they have to fight a bunch of duels with identical clones. That said, even assuming you could be one it's really unclear how effective it is. That's because at high-level your power is all about your magic items, which vary from campaign to campaign. A level 17 monk gets 4 attacks that each do 20 damage, or 80 DPS. A Maxed out Fighter with a +5 sword gets 2 attacks for 1d8+5, or 19 DPS. But if that same fighter has a Belt of Giant Strength and an artifact sword, they might be doing 1d8+13, 3 times a round if hasted, plus lighting people on fire or stealing their souls or something.

[hogarth]

[*]Unless you're starting with a huge number of experience points, monks are terrible. Just really, really awful. They shouldn't be on that list.

There's a very narrow window where Monks are pretty decent characters, and it's something like 6-9th level or somewhere in there.

They really, really aren't decent in that range. You have a poor AC with no Dex Bonus. You have a mediocre to-hit chance with no Strength bonus (and no magic item bonus, if you're attacking unarmed). You have a puny amount of hit points. You get some abilities that nobody gives a shit about (like talking to animals and feigning death). You can only own two magic weapons and three other magic items. And, most importantly perhaps, you're 1-3 levels behind everyone else in the party (assuming XP is equal) for no good reason.

There was more than just backstabbing...thieves were basically high utility, especially if you were light on spellcasters. Locks and traps were fucking everywhere, and a lot of times being able to go up a wall could save the party a lot of trouble.

They're absolutely necessary for one thing -- traps. That's about it. (Locks can be broken, if necessary.)

I can imagine a campaign where climbing walls might come in handy, but it never happened in mine. YMMV.

[PoliteNewb]

Thanks for the UA breakdown! I was planning on posting one, but I got confused because I can't find any actually list of allowed multiclass combinations.....Can I be a dwarf Cleric/Thief? Gnome Cleric/Illusionist? I have no idea. And the worst part is, not knowing what combos are allowable also prevents us from knowing what the actual level limit is for SINGLE classes clerics.

Yeah...the answer to that is pretty much a shrug and "whateverthefuck your DM says is okay".

Forgot about this...

You're 5th level because this is fuck you edition. And that means they all go in the surprise round, and all go smack the same person and most likely they just die before they can move.

1.) You're seriously claiming nobody got past 5th level in AD&D?
The goddamn module says right in it "40 to 60 total levels". So if everybody is 5th, that's 8-12 dudes. Losing 1 guy is not exactly an emergency, even if that happens (which it probably doesn't...not to bugbears, anyway).

2.) In 1E, you wandered around dungeons with tight confines (WPM fits this), and you kept your squishy wizard in the middle; if those bugbears are going to tag-team anybody, it's going to be a fighter or a cleric; and since they're 5th level, they're wearing (at least) plate and shield, for AC 2 (could easily be better...+1 armor or shield, dex bonus, etc).

Bugbears need a 14 to hit AC 2 (35% chance to hit), and deal 2d4 damage (or by weapon, which isn't usually better than that)...average of 5. Even if 5 of them all manage to attack 1 guy, they are likely to inflict around 8 points of damage to him. Wow. I'm aghast.

And don't forget; bugbears are considered Large creatures in AD&D, so it's highly unlikely more than 2 of them are going to be able to gang somebody anyway. But even ignoring that and letting them dogpile someone, they're highly unlikely to 1-round snuff anybody.

Hell, let's say they manage to get the wizard, eh? A 5th level (or higher) wizard probably has anywhere between AC 8 and AC 4...so the bugbears are looking at 45-65% chance of hitting. I'm going to say 50% because it makes it easy and I'm lazy. a 5-bugbear team is (on average) going to do around 12.5 damage in 1 round. To the wizard. Which MIGHT kill him (he has 5-20 HP, plus con, plus any levels after 5th). After which they will probably be slaughtered in pretty short order.

Can you do math at all? Have you ever actually PLAYED 1st edition?

[Mr. GC]

Oh, I don't doubt they got past 5th... by starting at 5th, or having the DM cheat for them. Also there's multiple "you lose 1 or 2 levels per hit, no save" fucks in there so don't expect to keep those levels very long.

Also loving how you singled out the bugbears, the weakest thing I commented on, go on a sperglord fest about that, and then act as if that means anything about my overall points. For all the Den vs RPGSite bullshit, you're not so different.

[PoliteNewb]

Oh, I don't doubt they got past 5th... by starting at 5th, or having the DM cheat for them. Also there's multiple "you lose 1 or 2 levels per hit, no save" fucks in there so don't expect to keep those levels very long.

Also loving how you singled out the bugbears, the weakest thing I commented on, go on a sperglord fest about that, and then act as if that means anything about my overall points. For all the Den vs RPGSite bullshit, you're not so different.

What does "having the DM cheat for them" mean? But I've watched guys level up from 1st past 5th. It's not exactly a big deal. Now getting past 9th, that's a big deal.

As for the bugbears...I picked the stupidest thing you said and explained why it was dumb. If you'd like an in-depth look at how you are dumb, I can take a shot at it...but it'll have to wait until I get off work.

Here's a down payment...you also bitched about wights in the random encounters. Even a 5th level cleric has a 70% of making the wights run away like little bitches, no save. A 7th level cleric does it automatically. So who gives a fuck?

[Mr. GC]

One of the "you lose levels now", and also about the weakest. So your entire plan is "hope you go first"?

[Ted the Flayer]

Re: monks

I have the dragon magazine comparing like experience, and it said compared to like exp totals, monks had the lowest average HP in the game. The article suggested either d6 or d4 plus 1 hp (both doubled as normal at first level) which put them even with assassins.

[PoliteNewb]

One of the "you lose levels now", and also about the weakest.

It is one of exactly two. So yeah, it's the weakest. What's your point? Level draining monsters are unfair, wah wah wah?

So your entire plan is "hope you go first"?

That and "try not to get hit by them". What's yours, complain that they're unfair "fuck you" monsters and flounce off in a huff?

[K]

What, no write-up for dual classing?

People used to love that shit. You'd get to some decent level as a Fighter during the tough early levels, then spend a few adventures sucking as a low level Magic user who had high HPs while leapfrogging levels with the bigger XP rewards everyone else is bringing in.

[Red_Rob]

AD&D was chock full of "buy now, pay later" classes like the Fighter that started awesome and ran out of steam later, and "savings schemes" like the Mage or Dual Classing where you sucked for some indeterminate period of time before exploding with awesome.

I heard Gygax was an Actuary, which would explain why all the classes are set up like fucking financial plans. Seriously, when making a character the most important thing to ask your DM was "how long is this campaign going to last." That was Char Op in 1st edition.

[Mr. GC]

One of the "you lose levels now", and also about the weakest.

It is one of exactly two. So yeah, it's the weakest. What's your point? Level draining monsters are unfair, wah wah wah?

So your entire plan is "hope you go first"?

That and "try not to get hit by them". What's yours, complain that they're unfair "fuck you" monsters and flounce off in a huff?

That old editions are full of fuck yous. But you just keep on sperging.

Also, do let me know how you make D20s come up low, without cheating. I'll wait.

[PoliteNewb]

That old editions are full of fuck yous. But you just keep on sperging.

I keep pointing out how calling something a "fuck you" (especially without pointing out any reason why) is just being a whiny douche. And you keep doing it.

Also, do let me know how you make D20s come up low, without cheating. I'll wait.

What is this I don't even. What does rolling a d20 low have to do with anything?

EDIT: Ah, I see you were referring to "try not to get hit by them". You realize there are ways to avoid being hit, without affecting the random die rolls, right?

[Mr. GC]

That old editions are full of fuck yous. But you just keep on sperging.

I keep pointing out how calling something a "fuck you" (especially without pointing out any reason why) is just being a whiny douche. And you keep doing it.

Also, do let me know how you make D20s come up low, without cheating. I'll wait.

What is this I don't even. What does rolling a d20 low have to do with anything?

EDIT: Ah, I see you were referring to "try not to get hit by them". You realize there are ways to avoid being hit, without affecting the random die rolls, right?

In older editions? Not really. Everything has "move and full attack" and there's little to nothing in the way of fuck you, your attack fails (at these levels... later when you get shit like Stoneskin that changes).

[Ted the Flayer]

I am not an authority figure, but can you two sperglords keep the white plume mountain discussion to the white plume mountain thread?

[Orion]

I left Dual-Classing out of the original write-up because I was assuming that you don't have high stats opening any special options for you, and dual-classing requires a 17 and a 15 or something like that. But sure, we can talk about Dual-Classing. There's somethign we have to get out of the way first:

Weapons & Armor: The Cluster of Fucks

Each character class in AD&D has access to very specific sets of weapons and armor, and this equipment is often one of the major benefits of playing a class in the first place. As noted above, when optimizing AD&D you will very often find yourself wanting to acquire more than one class, and so naturally you would hope to gain an expanded selection of equipment. However, there are some limits. Most people think they know how multiclassed characters work, but are almost certainly wrong--either remembering the 2E mechanics or their groups house rules. That's because the actual mechanics of AD&D's multi-class characters are included in the individual race writeups, and show no consistency whatsoever, even when comparing the same multiclass from race to race. This is my best attempt to decipher the "Rules as Written."

Thieves A multiclass Thief gets all the armor and weapon proficiencies of both classes, but cannot use Thief abilities unless they stick to Thief armor and weapons. Generally people assume this means "can only sneak in leather, can only backstab with short swords and clubs and shit" but some might say you can't even stealth with a two-handed sword in your hand. ExceptionsDwarf Fighter/Thieves can backstab you with a battleaxe or a warhammer or whatever, but still can only Thieve in leather. Half-Orc Multiclass Thieves and Assassins aren't even proficient in heavy armors.

Magic-UserElf and Half-Elf Magic-Users can wear platemail and chuck spells with a battleaxe in hand because fuck yeah. Bizarrely, multiclassed Gnome Fighter/Illusionists can only wear Leather, even though this is more armor than Illusionists get and less than Fighters get. Because fuck gnomes.

Cleric Believe it or not, even though the Clerical prohibition against blade weapons is described as a religious taboo, it does not apply to multiclass Clerics. Maybe Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are assumed to come from another church, or maybe their moral pragmatism explains their low level limits. Who knows? In any case, most DMs I know enforce the restrictions, so get that shit cleared up before the game.

Dual-Classing: No Rules for this Shit

So the section on Dual-Classing gives virtually no information on how combining these abilities is supposed to work, but the one example it gives is instructive: We are explicitly told that a Human Fighter->Magic-User cannot cast spells while wearing armor. This is just great, because it means that dual-classers clearly operate under different rules from multiclassed characters, but those rules are not explained anywhere. That means evaluating the potential of dual-classing will require that we make some house rules.

• Magic-Users and Illusionists: There is no mention of weapon restrictions for a dual-classed character, and none for comparable multiclasses, so we'll asume that's fine. Going off the Fighter->Magic-User example character, it looks like spellcasting in armor is a no-go. Illusionists are left in a fucking weird spot. A Gnome Fighter/Illusionist or Thief/Illusionist can cast in leather, so maybe a human Fighter->Illusionist should get leather as well. On the other hand, the human magic-user is more restricted than the elf, so maybe illusionists are too? For extra weirdness, there's a plausible argument to be made that a Magic-User->Fighter couldcast spells in plate.
• Clerics and DruidsThe way that the Half-Elf writeup specifically calls out the freedom to use edged weapons as an X/Cleric suggests that it might be a racial benefit that human X->Clerics don't get. On the other hand, none of the multiclass characters are weapon-restricted, so maybe clerics shouldn't be either. Most MC's assume the druid restriction to nonmetal armor is religious and binding, but there's no clear mechanical precedent either way. Some even assume the allowed weapon list is religiously binding.
• Thieves and AssassinsThere's no reason not to think the precedent from multiclassing holds--and no way to tell whether Humans should use the Elf, Dwarf, or Half-Orc version.

It's Time to D-D-D-D-Dual!

So, assuming you rolled some high stats and are allowed to place them where you want, what are good plans for dual-classing? Generally you want your first class to be something with a good endgame, and your first class to somehow synergize with it. You'll want to pay close attention to the XP progression charts, too. If your first class gains levels quickly, you can get to your desired level faster and thus be less behind when you hit the reset. Changing into a class with fast leveling is really attractive because you get your old powers back sooner, but these classes tend to have weaker endgames. Let's put it together.
The Core Four

• Fighters. OutStarting as a fighter and jumping out is the actual example character, and it's the most obviously appealing one. You get to have a big pile of hit points, use weapons and armor to survive when your party is low level, and then end up a surprisingly robust spellslinger or trapfinder. Fighter->MU gives you massively better HP, even compared to an elf Fighter/MU, but lacking armor may bum you out. You can hit Fighter6->MU9 with 40.5 HP and 5th-level spells while the Elf is Fighter7/MU7 with 28 HP and 4th-level spells. And you can reach Fighter6->MU18 when the Elf capped at F7/M12. However, when the elf is just reaching their level cap they're going to outperform. Fighter->Thief has the advantage of minimizing the time it takes to earn back your Fighting skills, and ends up functionally very similar to Fighter/Thief except with smoother high-end progression. Fighter->Cleric can be really good, but it depends on taking Fighter up to at least 7 and suffers if you can't use a sword.
  
  InFighters actually have some very attractive high-level abilities in AD&D. At Fighter 13 you have an army, 2 attacks per round, and ridiculously good attack and save numbers. However, you probably don't want to multiclass into Fighter. In a mid-level group, being a 1st-level MU with 33 HP sucks a little bit, but being a 1st-level Fighter with 15 HP sucks a lot. If you're jumping out of Thief or Cleric it will take forever for you to outlevel your old class, and if you're already a mid-levele MU, why not try to be a high-level one instead of picking up a sword? Also, by the rules as written your HP get screwed-- an M6->F9 gets 6d4+3d10 HP. Most MC's will let you take the 9d10 though.
• Thief. InJumping into Thief is one of the best jumps you can make, just because it's the easiest way to actually outlevel your first class. Fighter->Thief and Magic-User->Thief both have their appeal. Cleric->Thief is probably better than being a Half-Orc, but might suck if you get stuck with leather armor and a club. Plus, your attack rolls will never ever be any good. The biggest argument against ->Thief is that if your party needs a good Thief they probably need one sooner rather than later, and if they have a Thief you will feel kinda useless.
  
  OutThief skills are simple percentage rolls, and once you're hitting 80% you may feel it's good enough. This goes double if you have another Thief; two dudes who each have 80% find traps achieve 96% when working together. Since Thieves level so fast, you can make the switch when your teammates are still fairly low level. Thief->MU is really appealing but probably inferior to multiclassing. Thief->Fighter is more interesting. You get to outlevel Thief faster than an MU would, and you get the awesome armies and attack speed bonuses almost as fats as a straight Fighter. Just hope your MC doesn't screw you on HP.Thief->Cleric is just terrible
• .
  
  ClericIn and Out I really have nothing interesting to say about cleric combos in general, so let's get the specifics. Cleric->Fighter can create an endgame fighter with some heals and buffs, but is probably not as good as just being a Paladin. Cleric->Thiefis the way to go if you must combine the two; try to talk you MC into letting you use a sword and cast healing and divination spells in town between adventures. Cleric->MU is the best way to get arcane and divine casting on one character. It lets you actually get high-level spells in both categories, or more likely just stop sinking XP into clericism and progress to endgame magic faster. Thief->Cleric and MU->Cleric are just terrible, while Fighter->Cleric has promise but needs a lot of fighter levels to make a difference.
  
  Magic-User. InDual-classing into MU is really really good. You get to have real hitpoints and skip being a level 1MU in a level 1 party, and still get high-level magic. Fighters, Clerics, and Thieves all have great reasons to jump into MU. Out. Jumping out of MU is generally a bad idea. You get to experience the suck of a level 1MU, and then the suck of a level 1 Fighter in a high-level group. If you're a mid-level MU you're almost a high-level MU, and should probably stick with that. MU->Thief is nice if you want utility magic and to get your dual on sooner. MU->Fighter might be playable if your MC lets you cast in armor.
  
  The Best of the Rest
  
  Most of the subclasses have little or no multiclassing options for nonhumans, so if you want to combine them this is the only way to do it. They also tend to have stat requirements, slow leveling tables, and weird restrictions that make this impractical. Rather than cover every combo, I'll list a few that stand out.
  
  DruidJumping into Druid from Fighter or Thief is just as reasonable as Cleric, especially if you can wear metal. I suppose you could jump out of Druid to avoid having to fight duels if your MC uses the druid hierarchy. MonkMonk->Cleric is a more flavorful way to get a healer/trapfinder than thief/cleric, and the immunities are probably more useful than backstabbing.Ranger.Ranger->Thief is probably better than Fighter->Thief.Illusionist. If you were tempted by the gnome Illusionist/Thief but cockblocked by level limits, this is your answer. If your MC lets you wear leather this is pretty good in either direction.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Cleric Believe it or not, even though the Clerical prohibition against blade weapons is described as a religious taboo, it does not apply to multiclass Clerics. Maybe Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are assumed to come from another church, or maybe their moral pragmatism explains their low level limits. Who knows? In any case, most DMs I know enforce the restrictions, so get that shit cleared up before the game.

Was the game waiving the 'clerics can't used bladed weapons' clause if they worship a specific deity a 2E D&D (or rather, 2E D&D version 3) invention or did 1E have that clause tucked away somewhere, too? 'cause that was in the basic 2E PHB.

[Juton]

Was the game waiving the 'clerics can't used bladed weapons' clause if they worship a specific deity a 2E D&D (or rather, 2E D&D version 3) invention or did 1E have that clause tucked away somewhere, too? 'cause that was in the basic 2E PHB.

I think one of the splat books, I want to say Deities and Demigods, had rules for that. Each god had different rules for weapons allowable but had other RP restrictions. This made Clerics of a war god pretty popular because they could use all weapons I believe and where fine with killing things.

[Username17]

Frank is also thinking of 2E; there was no psionic disintegration power in 1E.

You are of course correct. Although I was conflating the molecule manipulation shit and the 2e talents. In AD&D there is the ability to manipulate the molecules in "an object" so that it is brittle and falls apart. You are supposed to use this on chains and shit, and there is no save unless the target is a magic item. In AD&D there is no rigid distinction between creatures and objects, so there's no apparent reason you couldn't just focus that power on an enemy. I have seen more than one argument over what the fucking hell is supposed to happen there.

Was the game waiving the 'clerics can't used bladed weapons' clause if they worship a specific deity a 2E D&D (or rather, 2E D&D version 3) invention or did 1E have that clause tucked away somewhere, too? 'cause that was in the basic 2E PHB.

There were specialty priests you could be in 1st edition as well. For some reason I cannot remember it was game mechanically useful to be a worshiper of the Finnish Pantheon (yes, really), so all the power gamers were. People crowded into Finnish mythos so much that Finnish gods became important in the AD&D metagame. Forgotten Realms, for example, now features Mielikki and Loviatar front and center as a direct result of all of Greenwood's players demanding access to Finnish gods for some sort of power gamer reason that I can no longer remember.

-Username17

[PoliteNewb]

I am not an authority figure, but can you two sperglords keep the white plume mountain discussion to the white plume mountain thread?

Sure. I think I'm pretty much done with the troll anyway. Not sure why I bothered, really.

Frank is also thinking of 2E; there was no psionic disintegration power in 1E.

You are of course correct. Although I was conflating the molecule manipulation shit and the 2e talents. In AD&D there is the ability to manipulate the molecules in "an object" so that it is brittle and falls apart. You are supposed to use this on chains and shit, and there is no save unless the target is a magic item. In AD&D there is no rigid distinction between creatures and objects, so there's no apparent reason you couldn't just focus that power on an enemy. I have seen more than one argument over what the fucking hell is supposed to happen there.

Well...I think the main reason you couldn't use it on enemies was because what you could affect was determined by your "level of mastery"; and the chart listed shit like "thin cord" and "1 inch oak board" and "light steel chain"...but it didn't list stuff like "human flesh" or "dragon scales". So while you could argue with your DM about that stuff, it ended with him pulling something out of his ass about how an orc's body compared with a 1" iron bar (which, btw, was easier to manipulate than a 1" steel bar). So that's some pretty serious ass-pulling.
There was also the fact that the range was only 1" (10' or 10 yards) and cost 50 psi points (out of a theoretical max of 172 if you had all 18's for Int, Wis and Cha).

There were specialty priests you could be in 1st edition as well. For some reason I cannot remember it was game mechanically useful to be a worshiper of the Finnish Pantheon (yes, really), so all the power gamers were. People crowded into Finnish mythos so much that Finnish gods became important in the AD&D metagame. Forgotten Realms, for example, now features Mielikki and Loviatar front and center as a direct result of all of Greenwood's players demanding access to Finnish gods for some sort of power gamer reason that I can no longer remember.

-Username17

I don't recall any rules for specialty priests in 1E in any of the core books; doesn't mean there weren't any, but I don't remember seeing them. I do recall a lot of grognard fights in Dragon magazine about whether "it's bullshit not to let a cleric of Odin stab people with a spear" or "it's totally powergaming to let clerics use edged weapons".

As for Finnish pantheon powergaming...in Deities and Demigods, there's a part that says that if you worship Ukko, the Finnish supreme god, you can call on him for aid and he is 30% likely to send an air maiden to aid you, if you're fighting powerful evil and were going to be killed. These air maidens had 85 HP (which was a lot back in the day), all carried frost brands, and if one got killed while trying to rescue you, another one would show up to finish the job. There was no other limitations implied.

So if you worship this guy, there is a 30% chance that ass-kicking magic ladies will come rescue you if you get into a bad jam. That's a better deal than you'll get from most gods.

[Red_Rob]

Forgotten Realms, for example, now features Mielikki and Loviatar front and center as a direct result of all of Greenwood's players demanding access to Finnish gods for some sort of power gamer reason that I can no longer remember.

-Username17

Loviatar is Finnish? My players will love that, they still talk about how 1st edition Rakshasa came from India. I swear I learn so much reading this forum.