Hmmm … I’m not sure about that. Under “The Character With Two Classes” in the Player’s Handbook (page 33), it does say you have to switch “classes” and “professions”, but it’s not clear whether a “sub-class” is the same class or a different class for this purpose. (The DMG doesn’t even mention switching classes, except when discussing bards.)
As with a lot of things in first edition, this was probably one of those corner-cases in the rules that the developers just didn’t think of.
In Second Edition (which is where “dual-class” became the official term for it), the notion of sub-classes was replaced with class groups; paladins were no longer a sub-class of fighters, for example, instead both paladins and fighters belonged to the “Warrior” class group. In that case, there is no restriction against switching from one class to another if the two happen to be in the same class group. Illusionists were considered an example of a “specialist wizard” class; multi-classed characters weren’t allowed to become specialist wizards (except for gnomes, and then only in the case of illusionists), but dual-classed characters were. The rules are silent, however, as to whether a dual-classed character can be a mage and a specialist wizard, and whether a dual-classed character can be a specialist wizard of one school and a specialist wizard of a different school. (In fact, since a “dual-classed” character can actually change classes any number of times, there’s no rule saying that you can’t progress to 7th level as a thief, change to 1st level fighter, progress to 10th level as a fighter, and then change to a 1st level thief again.)
not recalling a rule hardly makes it a house rule. I don’t have the books handy but I do recall the rule…so we are at a stand still, regarding the player chained to a rock…hes trying to get out of the way, the disbelieving character is making no such attempt at all.
find a rule that says its not legal? we are talking ad&d here you had to make up your own rules for tons of stuff that wasnt covered.
Just because you don’t believe something doesn’t mean you also don’t try to avoid it. Better to try and do both especially if you think there’s a 50% chance of it being real. It’s not as if you have to maximize your exposure to it to disbelieve – I can disbelieve in the heat radiating from a fireball as much as I can the actual flames.
I do have all the books and (after using them continuously for the last 33 years) have looked through them recently specifically for the points mentioned in the thread.
Here’s one such point (bolding mine):
Players Handbook, page 33:
under the heading “The Character With Two Classes”, it reads
"In order to switch from one class to another, "
Both Magic User and Illusionist are members of the same class (Magic User), as shown on page 19 and page 26 of the Players Handbook.
Therefore you cannot have a Magic User / Illusionist (nor a Cleric / Druid, nor a Paladin / Ranger etc.)
if you think that my having the books and quoting from them compared to you remembering the rule means we are at a standstill, then I disagree (and I don’t see the point of typing any more actual words, nor discussing it further.)
I’m looking at both those pages right now, and the evidence is not nearly as cut-and-dried as you’re making it out to be.
Page 19 shows two tables, each of which has “Class of character” as the header for the left-hand column. In both tables, “MAGIC_USER” appears in all caps as the first row of a color-banded group of 2 rows, and “Illusionist” appears in mixed case on the (same-colored) row below it, indented somewhat. This clearly demonstrates that Illusionists are related to magic-users in some way, but does not automatically mean that they are members of the SAME class.
Page 26 states, “Illusionists form a sub-class of magic-users, and in most respects they conform to the characteristics of the latter.” The next paragraph begins with “While being equal, or even slightly inferior, to normal magic-users in most respects, …”. A later paragraph on the same page, which deals with illusionists creating magic items, says “this is done in much the same manner in which regular magic-users create magic items.”
Related to magic-users? You bet.
A sub-class of magic-users? Definitely.
The SAME class as magic-users?
Hardly.
I love that we are arguing on the internet over a 30 year old game that is probably the nerdiest game ever in the history of games about a rule that was not clear and dry in the books and what we have is a difference of opinion or interpretation, could it get any dorkier up in here?
Not without being able to smell other people online. There always seemed to be ONE person in any gaming group who just didn’t grasp the importance of regular, frequent baths and/or showers. That’s carrying medieval role-playing a bit too far.
Multi-Class magic-user/illusionist? No. (There were about 10 or 12 allowable multi-class combinations spelled out in the 1st Edition PHB, and you’re right, magic-user/illusionist wasn’t among them.)
Character with Two Classes, who starts as a magic-user and then switches to illusionist, or vice-versa? THAT’S what we’re debating, and that’s what I’m saying the rules are silent about.
There’s a reason I’m asking these esoteric questions about 1st Edition AD&D.
Namely, I’m working on vast improvements to a game I wrote in GWBASIC way back in the 1980s, called:
Hack Up the Monster, Steal Its Treasure, and Proceed On to the Next Room
The current version I’m working on is version 2.0, which is written in C# for .NET 4.0 as a Console App. (“Console App” is .NET-speak for an app that runs in a DOS-like command line window, instead of having a normal windowed UI.) Think of it as “1st Edition AD&D with Unearthed Arcana, the text game”.
If you want to try it out, it’s the last app here:
I’ve been adding game mechanics and monsters left-and-right, but the one thing I have not actually been able to add to the game yet is Player Character Levels. You’re currently stuck at level 1. Even if you’re wielding a +5 holy avenger and wearing +4 full plate armor with a +5 shield and a girdle of ogre strength, you’re still 1st Level. The prospect of adding levels scares me, primarily because of one giant Pandora’s box I’ll have to deal with: SPELLS. Ugh. 40 1st-level magic-user spells was bad enough, but having to add all the spells for all the classes up through the dreaded 9th level magic-user spells? <shudder>
What is your goal here? If you’re doing it for the aesthetic pleasure of recreating the pen-and-paper system in code, then, yeah, you’ll need to include them all.
But it’s not like 1st edition was a well-thought-out, unified system. It’s a hodgepodge of rules created by different designers for different purposes. There’s a lot of overlap between spell effects and a lot of stuff that’s worthless in a dungeon crawl. You could have a quite playable system even if you limited yourself to just a dozen spells per level. Of course, then it wouldn’t be an accurate recreation of AD&D … .
Precisely. I’m trying to make 1st-Edition-AD&D-with-Unearthed-Arcana, the text game – not just Rogue without graphics.
Well, 1st-Edition-AD&D-with-Unearthed-Arcana where the only interaction is close-quarters combat inside a linear dungeon where the rooms are distinguished only by their room number, but still. I mean, look at some of the source code:
public bool Cast_PenetrateDisguise(Spell spell)
{
Console.WriteLine("YES!!! This monster is actually Benny Goodman in disguise!");
return true;
}
public bool Cast_Portent(Spell spell)
{
Console.WriteLine("You determine that you will be lucky 5 years from now (if you live that long).");
return true;
}
public bool Cast_PurifyFoodAndDrink(Spell spell)
{
if (spell.Reversed)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hah! The " + monsters[0].Name + "'s rations are TOTALLY RUINED now!");
Console.WriteLine("That'll show 'em!");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Good work! Now you won't have to worry about that botulism that's been");
Console.WriteLine("spreading throughout the town. Still have to worry about the monsters,");
Console.WriteLine("though.");
}
return true;
}
Even if the spell is worthless, I still let 'em cast it!
Again, I contest that, and I’d need to see a rule saying otherwise.
Nowhere does it say that a class that is a sub-class of another class is considered the “same class” for purposes of dual-classing. If you’ve seen a rule that states otherwise, please give book-chapter-and-verse (as it were).
Not only can I not find any 1st Edition AD&D rules for how XP is to be awarded with a multi-classed character, I also can’t find any 1st Edition AD&D rule saying that you can’t wield a 2-handed weapon and equip a shield at the same time!
(And, no, it’s not as obvious as you might think. A lance is a polearm, which would nominally make it a 2-handed weapon – yet if you’ve ever seen medieval jousting you’ve seen armored combatants on horseback charging at each other with a lance in one hand and a shield in the other.)
It’s not in the description of multi-classed characters in the PHB.
It’s not in the description of experience points in the DMG.
It’s scattered throughout the various RACE descriptions in the PHB!
For example, in the entry for Half-Orcs, there is this sentence:
“All earned experience is always divided equally between the player’s two classes, even though the character might no longer be able to progress upward in level in one of the two classes.”
Similar sentences appear in the entries for halflings, dwarves, elves, half-elves, and gnomes.
So, there you have it! My question has finally been answered. But, damn, I never would’ve thought to look there!
EDIT: Although I just realized, it still doesn’t say anything about what to do if one of the classes qualifies for the 10% XP bonus from a high ability score and the other class doesn’t, e.g. a Fighter/Cleric with 17 strength and 10 wisdom.
