HELP: Multiclass hit point confusion
John B. Williston
I've been researching this issue for some time this evening, and it
seems I've found almost as many answers as there are FAQs and/or
guides on the subject. I'm hoping someone who knows the story can make
clear precisely how BG handles leveling up with multiclass characters.
I began to obsess over this issue while playing a cleric/mage
character with a CON of 15. No matter how many times I roll and
reroll, this character *never* picks up more than 3 HP when leveling
up. This seems odd to me given what the Player's Handbook says:
"Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
is professing.
2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution.
3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three),
dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater
upwards to the next whole number.
4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the
multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience
level."[1]
According to this algorithm, 1d4 and 1d8 ought be rolled for my
cleric/mage upon leveling up, which gives an initial possible range of
2 - 12. Adding the +1 bonus for a CON of 15 and then dividing by the
number of classes (viz., two) gives a final possible range of 1 - 6.
This number just seems "right", but I have rolled and rolled and
rolled and rolled without *ever* seeing more than 3 HP picked up,
whether leveling up as a mage or a cleric.
I just don't understand what's going on and why BG seemingly deviates
from the 2nd. edition AD&D rules upon which it is supposedly based.
Whatever BG is doing, it strikes me as a real impediment to developing
a workable multiclass character as my cleric mage (3/3) presently has
a whopping 16 HP; i.e., he's lucky if he survives an encounter with
gibberlings by himself!
If anyone can explain what's really happening, you will have surely
earned my gratitude. Thanks in advance!
John
---
[1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
M.D. Mackey
>I began to obsess over this issue while playing a cleric/mage
>character with a CON of 15. No matter how many times I roll and
>reroll, this character *never* picks up more than 3 HP when leveling
>up. This seems odd to me given what the Player's Handbook says:
Note that in most cases you will be levelling up as either a cleric _or_
a mage, not both simultaneously. The hp you will get from levelling
up as a mage is (1d4+1)/2, or a max of 3. The hp you will get from
levelling up as a cleric will be (1d8+1)/2, or a max of 5. Note that rather
than rounding the hp with each level gain, the game actually keeps track
of the 'half-hitpoints', so if you gained '3hp' levelling up as a mage
you'll actually have gained 2.5, and so the max you'll get levelling up
as a cleric will be 4. I hope that makes sense: the upshot is that once
you have gained both a cleric and a mage level you'll have gained at
most 7hp (not 8) :)
Your level 3/3 mage/cleric has an _absolute_maximum_ hp of
(3x4+3*8)/2+3, or 21 hp, so you're not doing too badly with 16.
Cleric/mages are not supposed to be beefy front-line fighters, and if
you let the baddies get too close you're going to get hurt.
--
Mark Mackey http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/MMRG/people/mdm/
code code code code code code code code code code code code code bug code co
de code code code bug code code code code code code code code code code code
code code code code code code code code code code code code code code code c
John B. Williston
>Note that in most cases you will be levelling up as either a cleric _or_
>a mage, not both simultaneously. The hp you will get from levelling
>up as a mage is (1d4+1)/2, or a max of 3. The hp you will get from
>levelling up as a cleric will be (1d8+1)/2, or a max of 5. Note that rather
>than rounding the hp with each level gain, the game actually keeps track
>of the 'half-hitpoints', so if you gained '3hp' levelling up as a mage
>you'll actually have gained 2.5, and so the max you'll get levelling up
>as a cleric will be 4. I hope that makes sense: the upshot is that once
>you have gained both a cleric and a mage level you'll have gained at
>most 7hp (not 8) :)
So then BG doesn't roll *both* hit dice as specified by the Player's
Handbook? That sure would explain the poor hitpoint results. I guess I
prefer the official AD&D 2nd ed. rules as it seems more "fair" for
multiclass characters because it averages all the class hit dice. As
it stands, multiclass characters have positively pathetic hit points.
John
___ ___
\ \ __ / / Williston Consulting
\ \/ \/ / __________ makes software worth buying.
\ /\ / / _______/
\_/ \_/ / / http://home.zyan.com/~wc
/ /_______ w...@zyan.com
/__________/
PlasmaJohn
John B. Williston <w...@zyan.com> wrote:
> So then BG doesn't roll *both* hit dice as specified by the Player's
> Handbook?
You only roll the die of the class that gained the level and then divide
by the number of classes you multi in.
> That sure would explain the poor hitpoint results.
Sucky hp's is the penalty of multiclassing.
> I guess I prefer the official AD&D 2nd ed. rules as it seems more
> "fair" for multiclass characters because it averages all the class
> hit dice.
Huh? That's exactly what it's doing. Actually, by tracking the half
points, you're getting more than the "official rules" entitle you to.
--
Comments are On behalf of myself only.
j (nodot) klar (aT) projectplasma (dOt) comNOUCE
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John B. Williston
wrote:
>Sucky hp's is the penalty of multiclassing.
But why should that be? It surely doesn't match the rules at all.
>Huh? That's exactly what it's doing. Actually, by tracking the half
>points, you're getting more than the "official rules" entitle you to.
No, it's not. I take the following from my original post:
"Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
is professing.
2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution.
3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three),
dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater
upwards to the next whole number.
4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the
multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience
level."[1]
The 2nd edition AD&D rules clearly do not penalize multiclass
characters at all. If BG used these rules, then my present cleric/mage
at level 3/3 could have up to 39 HP. Because of the screwy way BG does
things, however, he is presently at 16 HP out of a possible maximum of
21 HP. That sucks by comparison. I don't see any good reason for BG to
deviate from the official 2nd edition AD&D rules, nor do I see why
further penalties for multiclass characters are needed. They are
already penalized, after all, by extremely slow advancement due to the
experience division across classes.
John
---
[1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
m...@tadyatam.org
39? Hm, are you sure that the total(s) was divided by the
character's number of classes?
--J
Replies to: jNpolak(at)Ojuno(dot)Tcom
Gert-Jan Spoel
>
> > 1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> > is professing.
> >
Cleric = d8, Mage = d4
> > 2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution.
> >
max 8 + 4 + 2 (max con bonus non-fighter)
> > 3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three),
> > dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater
> > upwards to the next whole number.
> >
14 / 2 = 7
> > 4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the
> > multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience
> > level."[1]
> >
3 levels = 21 max.
> > The 2nd edition AD&D rules clearly do not penalize multiclass
> > characters at all. If BG used these rules, then my present cleric/mage
> > at level 3/3 could have up to 39 HP.
a 3rd level fighter max (con 18) 42 hp
a 3rd level priest max 30 (cleric/druid)
a 3rd level rogue max 24 (thief/bard)
a 3rd level mage max 18
>> Because of the screwy way BG does
> > things, however, he is presently at 16 HP out of a possible maximum of
> > 21 HP.
AD&D Players handbook page 44 :
Roll hitdice for each class, sum the total and divide by number of classes.
Then add con bonus.
Which yields (8+4)/2 + 2 = 8 hp max.
When levelling up (2x cleric, 2x mage) roll appropriate die and divide by
number of classes. Round down (but never less than one) and add con
bonus/classes. Which means 2 x 8 max again = max 24.
16 out of 24 is about 2/3 max. Not too bad.
It seems BG is not wrong. 16 is a realistic number.
--
Gert-Jan
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Speaker-to-Customers
"John B. Williston" <w...@zyan.com> wrote ...
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:03:17 GMT, PlasmaJohn <jk...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sucky hp's is the penalty of multiclassing.
>
> But why should that be? It surely doesn't match the rules at all.
>
> >Huh? That's exactly what it's doing. Actually, by tracking the half
> >points, you're getting more than the "official rules" entitle you to.
>
> No, it's not. I take the following from my original post:
>
> "Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
>
> 1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> is professing.
I take it you mean "progressing".
> 2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution.
>
> 3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three),
> dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater
> upwards to the next whole number.
>
> 4. The number derived (quotient) is the number of hit points the
> multi-classed character gains with the rise in that experience
> level."[1]
>
> The 2nd edition AD&D rules clearly do not penalize multiclass
> characters at all. If BG used these rules, then my present cleric/mage
> at level 3/3 could have up to 39 HP.
Incorrect. According to the 2nd Edition rules, exactly as correctly quoted
by you, assuming 15 constitution, he could have (3 x d8 + 3) / 2 + (3 x d4
+ 3) /2 = (27/2) + (15/2) = 13.5 + 7.5 = 21 HP maximum. The only thing BG
is doing that conflicts with the straight AD&D rules is not rounding up the
half points each time, which would give 5 hp per cleric level, 3 hp per mage
level, on a maximum roll each time, and thus 24 hp maximum. Keeping exact
track of the half points does mean you lose out slightly. However, few
human DMs would let you keep re-rolling the hp dice until you got what you
wanted, so you gain that way. Swings & Roundabouts.
>Because of the screwy way BG does
> things, however, he is presently at 16 HP out of a possible maximum of
> 21 HP. That sucks by comparison. I don't see any good reason for BG to
> deviate from the official 2nd edition AD&D rules, nor do I see why
> further penalties for multiclass characters are needed. They are
> already penalized, after all, by extremely slow advancement due to the
> experience division across classes.
AD&D was intended to be centred around humans, and if multi-class characters
did not suffer by comparison with single-class, min/maxers would always play
multi-class non-humans. Remember, a 3/3 Cleric/Mage fights as a 3rd level
cleric (max hp at 15 Con = 27) so why should he have more hit points? He
should have, and does, have fewer, although better than the 3rd level mage.
> John
>
> ---
>
> [1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
> ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
>
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
D&D player/DM since 1976 (the Old Firm)
John B. Williston
>39? Hm, are you sure that the total(s) was divided by the
>character's number of classes?
Well, let's see if I got the math wrong. A level 3/3 cleric mage would
have a total of six levels worth of hit dice. Given what the Player's
Handbook says, the maxima for all these dice would be: 6 * 8 + 6 * 4,
which is 72. Because of his CON, the character would also have 6 bonus
HP, which brings that total to 78. Dividing by the number of classes,
two in this case, yields a final possible maximum of 39. I think I got
it right given the algorithm described by the Player's Handbook; BG,
on the other hand, seems to get it greviously wrong.
John
John B. Williston
<gertja...@soneramail.nl> wrote:
>max 8 + 4 + 2 (max con bonus non-fighter)
My character has a CON of only 15, so he gets only a +1 bonus.
>3 levels = 21 max.
I think your math goes wrong here. With a multiclass character at
level 3/3, there are six "levelups", not three (considering the
initial starting at level 1 to be a leveling up).
John
John B. Williston
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>> 1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
>> is professing.
>
>I take it you mean "progressing".
No, I quoted the Player's Handbook precisely as it is written. The
word 'professing' seems just fine as a cleric/mage presumably
professes to be both a cleric and a mage.
>Incorrect. According to the 2nd Edition rules, exactly as correctly quoted
>by you, assuming 15 constitution, he could have (3 x d8 + 3) / 2 + (3 x d4
>+ 3) /2 = (27/2) + (15/2) = 13.5 + 7.5 = 21 HP maximum. The only thing BG
>is doing that conflicts with the straight AD&D rules is not rounding up the
>half points each time, which would give 5 hp per cleric level, 3 hp per mage
>level, on a maximum roll each time, and thus 24 hp maximum. Keeping exact
>track of the half points does mean you lose out slightly. However, few
>human DMs would let you keep re-rolling the hp dice until you got what you
>wanted, so you gain that way. Swings & Roundabouts.
What your math fails to consider, however, is that a multiclass
character of level 3/3 does not get only *3* "levelups"; rather, he
gets *six* (counting his initial first level HP as a levelling up). My
cleric/mage, for example, can be said to have progressed as follows:
(1) Initial "levelup" as both a cleric and mage
(2) Level 2 as a cleric (1,500 xp)
(3) Level 2 as a mage (2,500 xp)
(4) Level 3 as a cleric (3,000 xp)
(5) Level 3 as a mage (5,000 xp)
If we apply the algorithm described in the Player's Handbook to each
of these instances of levelling up, then the math I have given is
correct and the maximum possible for my character would be 39 HP.
>AD&D was intended to be centred around humans, and if multi-class characters
>did not suffer by comparison with single-class, min/maxers would always play
>multi-class non-humans. Remember, a 3/3 Cleric/Mage fights as a 3rd level
>cleric (max hp at 15 Con = 27) so why should he have more hit points? He
>should have, and does, have fewer, although better than the 3rd level mage.
I agree that AD&D was human-centric, and I agree that the initial
intention was to make non-humans less desirable through level
restrictions and other such stuff. However, I would make two points in
response to the claim that the limitations BG imposes--which I claim
as above do not match the Player's Handbook--are just.
(1) The original human-centric conception of AD&D is clearly
antiquated. Just as BG did away with differences between the sexes and
level limitations on the non-human races, I see no legitimate reason
to punish non-human multi-class characters. If nothing else, there is
surely no reason to punish multiclass characters specifically as
humans can dual class. A dual-classed human cleric/mage at level 3/3
in the same situation, for example, could have a maximum of 42 HP
(given a CON of 15), compared to the 39 HP maximum my multi-class
character could have under the Player's Handbook rules.
(2) Even if one grants that some kind of disincentive is still
warranted to keep people away from multiclass characters, I would
argue that such a disincentive already exists, namely, that multiclass
characters level up at a ridiculously slow rate compared to their
singleclass bretheren.
In short, I don't think you've done the calculation correctly, and I
don't see any good reason to think that it should be done the BG way
even if you are right. Any thoughts?
John
Geoffrey Brent
[re-ordered for ease of response]
> The 2nd edition AD&D rules clearly do not penalize multiclass
> characters at all. If BG used these rules, then my present cleric/mage
> at level 3/3 could have up to 39 HP. Because of the screwy way BG does
> things, however, he is presently at 16 HP out of a possible maximum of
> 21 HP. That sucks by comparison. I don't see any good reason for BG to
> deviate from the official 2nd edition AD&D rules, nor do I see why
> further penalties for multiclass characters are needed. They are
> already penalized, after all, by extremely slow advancement due to the
> experience division across classes.
I don't have 2nd Ed, but the 1st Ed rules were in agreement with
the way BGII does it - and if the rules you're quoting below are
the 2nd Edition ones, I think you're reading them wrong.
Now, let's look at your cleric/mage. I'm guessing there's a +1
Constitution bonus involved there, right? Calculating max. hit
points:
> No, it's not. I take the following from my original post:
>
> "Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
>
> 1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> is professing.
>
> 2. Total the sum of all dice so rolled, and adjust for constitution.
At level 1/1:
If you interpret this literally: mage rolls 4 points, cleric
rolls 8, +1 for Constitution = 13. I think the Con bonus is
_meant_ to apply for both classes (since we're about to divide
by # of classes anyway), and this is a case of poor wording,
in which case the total would be 14. But as it turns out, it
makes no difference here.
> 3. Divide the total by the character's classes (two or three),
> dropping fractions under 1/2, rounding fractions of 1/2 or greater
> upwards to the next whole number.
Number of classes = 2, so we take 13 (or 14) and divide by 2,
rounding up, to get 7 hit points. So your level 1/1 mage/
cleric with a +1 bonus from Con has a maximum of 7 hit points.
Going through the same process for each level gain: if you go
up mage & cleric levels simultaneously, you get a 7-HP rise
(same working applies) for a total max. of 21 HP. If you take
your level-ups individually, mage level-ups are worth a maximum
of (4+1)/2 (rounds to 3) and cleric level-ups are worth maximum
(8+1)/2 (rounds to 5), which would give you 7+8+8 = maximum 23
hp at level 3/3. While the wording's a little ambiguous on some
things, the "divide by the character's classes (two or three)"
is clear enough.
> [1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
> ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
2nd edition, 1978? Are you sure of that date? That sounds like
_first_ edition to me.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
John Williston wrote"
> "Multi-classed characters determine their hit points as follows:
>
> 1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> is professing.
[attributed to 2nd Edition Players' Handbook, but I think
this actually comes from the 1st edition.]
Ah, I think I see the source of the disagreement here...
you're reading this as implying that when a mage/cleric
advances in level in one class (eg a 1/1 M/C reaches level
2 cleric) s/he should roll hit dice for mage _and_ cleric
classes? I guess you could read it that way, but in about
a decade of playing AD&D I never met anybody else who did.
Furthermore, the 2nd Edition is somewhat clearer on the
matter:
"The character's hit points are the average of all his Hit
Dice rolls. When the character is first created, the player
rolls hit points for each class separately, totals them up,
then divides by the number of dice rolled (round fractions
down). Any Constitution bonus is then added to the character's
hit points. If one of the character's classes is fighter and
he has a Constitution of 17 or 18, then he gains the +3 or +4
Constitution bonus available only to warriors (instead of the
+2 maximum available to the other character classes).
"Later the character is likely to gain levels in different
classes at different times. When this happens, roll the appropriate
Hit Die and divide the result by the number of classes the
character has (round fractions down, but a Hit Die never yields
less than 1 hit point). The character's Constitution bonus is split
between his classes; thus, a fighter/mage gets 1/2 of his Con bonus
when he goes up a level as a fighter and the other 1/2 of the Con
bonus when he goes up a level as a mage. A fighter/mage/thief would
get 1/3 of his bonus when he goes up as a fighter, 1/3 when he goes
up as a mage, and the other 1/3 when he goes up as a thief.
It even offers an example:
"Rupert's character, Morrison the Multi-Faceted, is a half-elf fighter
/mage/thief. At 1st level, Morrison rolls three dice for hit points:
1d10 (fighter), 1d6 (thief), and 1d4 (mage). The results are 6, 5, and
2. Their sum (13) is divided by three and rounded down to equal 4
(13/3=4-1/3=4). Morrison begins the game with 4 hit points. Later,
Morrison reaches 2nd level as a thief before he reaches 2nd level as a
fighter or a mage. He rolls 1d6 for additional hit points and the result
is 4. He divides this by 3 (because he has three classes) and rounds
down. Morrison gets 1 more hit point when he becomes a 2nd-level thief.
(He will also roll 1d10 and 1d4 [both rolls divided by 3] when he
reaches 2nd level as a fighter and as a mage, respectively.)"
(2nd Ed. Players' Handbook, Chapter 3, "Multi-class & dual-class
characters" section. Around p. 95, although that may vary depending
on page size - I'm using the CD-ROM version.)
As far as I can tell, the 2nd Edition interpretation matches what
was _intended_ in 1st Edition (and the way all the players I knew
interpreted 1st Ed. rules) but the wording has been cleared up.
Geoffrey Brent
Speaker-to-Customers
To John B Williston:
I have re-loaded the AD&D Core Rules CD-Rom (which I had had to uninstall to
make way for BG2, and I had to uninstall the Encarta to fit it back on to my
full HD), created a multi-class character, and advanced him a few levels to
check. The programme does it the way I, and Geoffrey Brent, and BG, and
everyone else I've ever met since the First Edition reached the UK in early
1979, does it.
Even if you were correct by the rules of semantics, which I can't see
anyway, you could hardly blame Black Isle/Interplay/Bioware for following
the same interpretation as the rest of the world.
Remember, in AD&D non-humans hit a LEVEL ceiling, not an experience point
cap. The intention is that, at that level ceiling, a multi-class elf should
have hit points half-way between those of his siblings who have
single-classed in the stronger and the weaker of his classes, and he is thus
roughly equivalent in power, although more versatile. At lower levels he
may suffer slightly, but the versatility is supposed to make up for this.
In long-running AD&D campaigns, multi-class characters usually lagged one or
two levels behind their single-class companions. The versatility did indeed
usually compensate, and none of my players ever thought to complain, or to
claim that they should have hit points according to your interpretation. As
some of them were "rules lawyers" who sought to gain every possible
advantage for themselves, had your interpretation made any kind of sense
they would have made that claim.
Don't compare multi-class characters to dual-class. You have never
experienced the heart-breakingly slow progress of a dual-class character in
P&P AD&D. Playing as a first level mage, restricted to 1 first level spell,
with the other players 4th level fighters etc, and if you think "sod this,
I'm going to die" and cast Cure Light Wounds on yourself you get NO
experience for the entire adventure - not a nice feeling. They really
needed the extra hit points. No-one I know ever did it twice. It's far too
easy to dual-class in BG.
The human-centric bias in AD&D is not antiquated. Faerun is dominated by
the humans, and if elves etc. had a significant edge over humans this would
clearly not be the case. The bias is a necessary feature of the game
environment as it stands.
The only tiny bit of sexist bias, that female humans could only get to 18/99
strength whereas men could reach 18/00 - something that would only affect 1
female character in 25,600 - has been removed, and frankly I don't see why,
but it has no big impact on the game world. Take away the rules which
appear to discriminate against non-humans, and you have to start asking why
the elves don't dominate the world.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Gebhard Blucher
news:95h1pv$k3d$1@MANNET-3800-
[snips]
> Don't compare multi-class characters to dual-class. You have never
> experienced the heart-breakingly slow progress of a dual-class character
in
> P&P AD&D. Playing as a first level mage, restricted to 1 first level
spell,
> with the other players 4th level fighters etc, and if you think "sod this,
> I'm going to die" and cast Cure Light Wounds on yourself you get NO
> experience for the entire adventure - not a nice feeling. They really
> needed the extra hit points. No-one I know ever did it twice. It's far
too
> easy to dual-class in BG.
HA! This is so true. I read these posts about people casually discussing
dual-classing like it's a given. In a real game it's HARD. I once dualed a
7th level fighter to mage and it took nearly a year real-time (playing every
Sunday afternoon) to make 8th level in his magic-user class. It's something
only done lightly in the computer game where XP flows like water.
> The human-centric bias in AD&D is not antiquated. Faerun is dominated by
> the humans, and if elves etc. had a significant edge over humans this
would
> clearly not be the case. The bias is a necessary feature of the game
> environment as it stands.
I think it was a deliberate decision made by Gygax & co. After all, most
fantasy lit settings are dominated by humans (or at least they are on the
rise). Personally, I think a game world dominated by non-humans would tend
to be less appealing to most people, at least on a sub-conscious level.
GB
Ragnar
news:799n7tgi1ddfgk04b...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:37:09 +0100, "Gert-Jan Spoel"
> <gertja...@soneramail.nl> wrote:
>
> I think your math goes wrong here. With a multiclass character at
> level 3/3, there are six "levelups", not three (considering the
> initial starting at level 1 to be a leveling up).
>
> John
>
case of the cleric/mage. One of things you apparently aren't getting into
your head is that because of the different XP tables for each class, they
will almost never make levels at the same time. For instance, a Cleric
makes 2nd level at 1500 XP, while a Mage makes 2nd at 2500 XP. You roll the
dice for EACH level made, and since you will likely make only one level at a
time, you roll only the one die for the class that levelled.
Its very simple. To prevent unbalancing the game and making multiclass
characters superpowerful, they made a couple of rules. One of those is that
multiclass fighter-types can never get more than 2 "*" in a weapon, while a
single class fighter can get 5. The HP rules are rather simple as well.
Levelup result are divided by the number of classes. In the case of the
cleric/mage, the absolute most you can make when the Cleric "half" levels is
5 points (1d8 + CON / 2 = 5); for the Mage its 3 points (1d4 + CON / 2 = 3).
In your case, with a CON of 15, you can only get 4.5 for the Cleric and 2.5
for the Mage for a total of 7 points per levelup.
Ragnar
Ragnar
cut-and-pasted this.
Multi-Class Benefits and Restrictions
A multi-class character always uses the most favorable combat value and the
best saving throw from his different classes.
The character's hit points are the average of all his Hit Dice rolls. When
the character is first created, the player rolls hit points for each class
separately, totals them up, then divides by the number of dice rolled (round
fractions down). Any Constitution bonus is then added to the character's hit
points. If one of the character's classes is fighter and he has a
Constitution of 17 or 18, then he gains the +3 or +4 Constitution bonus
available only to warriors (instead of the +2 maximum available to the other
character classes).
Later the character is likely to gain levels in different classes at
different times. When this happens, roll the appropriate Hit Die and divide
the result by the number of classes the character has (round fractions down,
but a Hit Die never yields less than 1 hit point). The character's
Constitution bonus is split between his classes; thus, a fighter/mage gets ½
of his Con bonus when he goes up a level as a fighter and the other ½ of the
Con bonus when he goes up a level as a mage. A fighter/mage/thief would get
1/3 of his bonus when he goes up as a fighter, 1/3 when he goes up as a
mage, and the other 1/3 when he goes up as a thief.
If the optional proficiency system is used, the character starts with the
largest number of proficiency slots of the different classes. Thereafter, he
gains new proficiency slots at the fastest of the given rates. To determine
the character's initial money, roll according to the most generous of the
character's different classes.
>>>>>>> NOTE EXAMPLE <<<<<<<<
Rupert's character, Morrison the Multi-Faceted, is a half-elf
fighter/mage/thief. At 1st level, Morrison rolls three dice for hit points:
John B. Williston
wrote:
>Yes, there are 6 levelups. Which are rolled and then divided by 2 in the
>case of the cleric/mage. One of things you apparently aren't getting into
>your head is that because of the different XP tables for each class, they
>will almost never make levels at the same time.
First, there is no reason to lend that tone with the discussion.
Second, that is *precisely* what I have "in my head". But whereas you
claim one should roll *only* the die for the class that gained the
level, that is *not* what the Player's Handbook says.
John B. Williston
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>I have re-loaded the AD&D Core Rules CD-Rom...
Interesting. I didn't know there was such a thing. That would be handy
to have.
>Even if you were correct by the rules of semantics, which I can't see
>anyway, you could hardly blame Black Isle/Interplay/Bioware for following
>the same interpretation as the rest of the world.
You don't see how I could be correct? Look at the following, will you:
"1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
is professing."
Where in that sentence does it say that one should roll *only* the
dice for the class that's leveled up? It doesn't. What it does
explicitly say is that one should roll the die or dice for *each*--not
one--class. The "interpretation" you and others apparently hold is
simply not supported by the text of the rules.
>Don't compare multi-class characters to dual-class. You have never
>experienced the heart-breakingly slow progress of a dual-class character in
>P&P AD&D. Playing as a first level mage, restricted to 1 first level spell,
>with the other players 4th level fighters etc, and if you think "sod this,
>I'm going to die" and cast Cure Light Wounds on yourself you get NO
>experience for the entire adventure - not a nice feeling. They really
>needed the extra hit points. No-one I know ever did it twice. It's far too
>easy to dual-class in BG.
Really? I haven't? That's funny, I seem to remember playing all kinds
of such characters in my younger days in PnP sessions. When playing,
we always used the rules as written, not excluding dice or other such
things for multi-class characters. And it never imbalanced the game at
all.
>The human-centric bias in AD&D is not antiquated. Faerun is dominated by
>the humans, and if elves etc. had a significant edge over humans this would
>clearly not be the case. The bias is a necessary feature of the game
>environment as it stands.
Really? Then I suppose you don't agree with BG's lack of level limits
and so forth?
>The only tiny bit of sexist bias, that female humans could only get to 18/99
>strength whereas men could reach 18/00 - something that would only affect 1
>female character in 25,600 - has been removed, and frankly I don't see why,
>but it has no big impact on the game world. Take away the rules which
>appear to discriminate against non-humans, and you have to start asking why
>the elves don't dominate the world.
Why don't the elves dominate the world? That's a question that could
easily be addressed by sociological factors. For example, one might
say that the perspective given to elves by their far longer life spans
prevents them from breeding as prolifically as humans, prevents them
from trying to build empires and rise to power as agressively as
humans, etc.
John B. Williston
<g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
>I don't have 2nd Ed, but the 1st Ed rules were in agreement with
>the way BGII does it - and if the rules you're quoting below are
>the 2nd Edition ones, I think you're reading them wrong.
Well, which part of "1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each
class the character is professing." am I getting wrong? Does 'each'
not mean 'each'? Or am I just supposed to assume that this should be
qualified to say "...each class the character is professing THAT HAS
LEVELED UP"? Frankly, I don't see how any of you can possibly support
the BG interpretation as there is just no basis for it given the text
of the rule I've cited.
>> [1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
>> ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
>
>2nd edition, 1978? Are you sure of that date? That sounds like
>_first_ edition to me.
Well, I've got the book right in front of me and that's the data taken
out of the inside first page. It says in the introduction that it's
the second edition of the rules, so I am assuming that it's the second
edition of the rules. Perhaps 'second edition of the rules' means
'first edition of the rules'; that seems as likely to me as the
interpretations I've been seeing of the aforementioned rule.
John
John B. Williston
<g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
>[attributed to 2nd Edition Players' Handbook, but I think
>this actually comes from the 1st edition.]
Maybe so, but like I said in another response, the introduction page
states that the book is the second edition.
>Ah, I think I see the source of the disagreement here...
>you're reading this as implying that when a mage/cleric
>advances in level in one class (eg a 1/1 M/C reaches level
>2 cleric) s/he should roll hit dice for mage _and_ cleric
>classes? I guess you could read it that way, but in about
>a decade of playing AD&D I never met anybody else who did.
Aha! You've got it. That's precisely what I've been getting at. I have
been foolishly taking the word 'each' to mean each.
>Furthermore, the 2nd Edition is somewhat clearer on the
>matter:
That's *much* clearer. There is no room for ambiguity therein that I
saw. Thanks for posting that. Now I'm just puzzled as to how my copy
of the Player's Handbook could be the first edition if it says in the
introduction that it's the second edition?! How bizarre. At any rate,
I now understand why BG does what it does. Thanks!
John
Graeme Dice
>
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 15:43:47 GMT, "Ragnar" <rwo...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, there are 6 levelups. Which are rolled and then divided by 2 in the
> >case of the cleric/mage. One of things you apparently aren't getting into
> >your head is that because of the different XP tables for each class, they
> >will almost never make levels at the same time.
>
> First, there is no reason to lend that tone with the discussion.
> Second, that is *precisely* what I have "in my head". But whereas you
> claim one should roll *only* the die for the class that gained the
> level, that is *not* what the Player's Handbook says.
"Later the character is likely to gain levels in different classes at
different times. When this happens, roll the appropriate Hit Die and
divide the result by the number of classes the character has (round
fractions down, but a Hit Die never yields less than 1 hit point). The
character's Constitution bonus is split between his classes; thus, a
fighter/mage gets half of his Con bonus when he goes up a level as a
fighter and the other half of the Con bonus when he goes up a level as a
mage. A fighter/mage/thief would get one-third of his bonus when he
goes up as a fighter, one-third when he goes up as a mage, and the other
third when he goes up as a thief.
Rupert's character, Morrison the Multi-Faceted, is a half-elf
fighter/mage/thief. At 1st level, Morrison rolls three dice for hit
points: 1d10(fighter), 1d6(thief), and 1d4(mage). The results are 6, 5,
and 2. Their sum (13) is divided by three and rounded down to equal 4
(13/3=4). Morrison begins the game with 4 hitpoints. Later, Morrison
reaches 2nd level as a thief before he reaches 2nd level as a fighter or
a mage. he rolls 1d6 for additional hitpoints and the result is 4. he
divides this by 3 (because he has three classes) and rounds down.
Morrison gets 1 more hit point when he becomes a 2nd-level thief. (He
will also roll 1d10 and 1d4 [both rolls divided by 3] when he reaches
2nd level as a fighter and as a mage, respectively.)"
AD&D, 2nd Edition, PHB, p. 61-62
Graeme Dice
--
William "D-FENS" Foster: I'm the bad guy??? How did that happen?
-- from "Falling Down"
John B. Williston
wrote:
>"Later the character is likely to gain levels in different classes at
>different times....
Yes, another person posted something quite similar. As it turns out, I
seem to have the *first* edition of the Player's Handbook (PH), which
has none of the unambiguous verbiage you provided. Of course, it's a
mystery to me how my PH is the first edition when the author's
foreward clearly states that it is the *second* edition of the D&D
rules. Go figure.
Speaker-to-Customers
"John B. Williston" <w...@zyan.com> wrote in message
news:gvbo7tk4l8ggijtiq...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:31:05 -0000, "Speaker-to-Customers"
> <oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>
> >I have re-loaded the AD&D Core Rules CD-Rom...
>
> Interesting. I didn't know there was such a thing. That would be handy
> to have.
>
> >Even if you were correct by the rules of semantics, which I can't see
> >anyway, you could hardly blame Black Isle/Interplay/Bioware for following
> >the same interpretation as the rest of the world.
>
> You don't see how I could be correct? Look at the following, will you:
>
> "1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> is professing."
>
> Where in that sentence does it say that one should roll *only* the
> dice for the class that's leveled up? It doesn't. What it does
> explicitly say is that one should roll the die or dice for *each*--not
> one--class. The "interpretation" you and others apparently hold is
> simply not supported by the text of the rules.
"Professing" IS a typo for "progressing". It was corrected in later
reprints. As I had to get new PHs more than once, as old ones fell to bits
and new players joined the group, I ended up with one in which the typo was
corrected. The character is *progressing* one level as a cleric, so rolls a
d8, and is *progressing* one level as a mage, so rolls a d4, and divides the
total by the number of classes (2). He does not roll both dice when he
progresses as a cleric, and both dice when progressing as a mage; he rolls
the die appropriate to the class in which he is advancing a level. The
example Geoffrey Brent quotes about "Morrison the Multi-Faceted" spells it
out, step by step, in excruciatingly precise detail. I cannot understand
how you can be misinterpreting it so badly.
Let us take Jaheira as an example. At the moment, in my replay of BG1, she
is 7/8 Fighter/Druid, and the single class characters like Minsc are
averaging 8th level. All have very similar experience points total (approx
160,000). Due to saving and retrying when levelling up, Minsc has got 81 hp
at 8th level (15 constitution). Jaheira has 68 hp (17 constitution, but in
her case I think I gave up re-rolling earlier a couple of times). If hp
were done the way you believe, Jaheira would have rolled a d10 and a d8,
added constitution bonuses, and divided by 2, a total of 15 TIMES! She
could then have reached 165 hit points, had I been prepared to keep retrying
until I got a max. roll each time. Now, seriously, which seems more
logical? A multi-class character having slightly fewer hit points than a
single-class character of equal experience, or approximately twice as many
hit points?
I have got my 8th level protagonist fighter up to 112 hp at 8th level, with
18 constitution and sometimes saving/retrying for 10 minutes on end until I
got a max roll at each level - so why should Jaheira have more on the same
xp? She can cast spells, I can't (apart from the Bhaalspawn special
abilities, still fairly mediocre by Chapter 5), so she should not be a tank,
indifferent to damage, on top of that.
Even if you wanted to play a straight fighter, it would be worth playing a
multi-class fighter/cleric to get extra hit points, even if you never
bothered casting any spells - which would be ridiculous.
If you still are of your opinion after this, then you are indeed entitled to
your opinion; but as Black Isle etc. agree with me, as far as Baldur's Gate
goes you'll just have to put up with it.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Geoffrey Brent
> The only tiny bit of sexist bias, that female humans could only get to 18/99
> strength whereas men could reach 18/00 - something that would only affect 1
> female character in 25,600
YM 21,600, I think :-)
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> > The human-centric bias in AD&D is not antiquated. Faerun is dominated by
> > the humans, and if elves etc. had a significant edge over humans this
> would
> > clearly not be the case. The bias is a necessary feature of the game
> > environment as it stands.
>
> I think it was a deliberate decision made by Gygax & co.
Indeed it was - the 1st Ed. Dungeon Master's Guide
(I think it was) included an essay on demi-humans
making it quite clear that the _intention_ of the
system (in such things as demihuman level caps, etc)
was to keep humans in a central role.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> You don't see how I could be correct? Look at the following, will you:
>
> "1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each class the character
> is professing."
>
> Where in that sentence does it say that one should roll *only* the
> dice for the class that's leveled up? It doesn't. What it does
> explicitly say is that one should roll the die or dice for *each*--not
> one--class. The "interpretation" you and others apparently hold is
> simply not supported by the text of the rules.
Unfortunately, playing 1st Edition AD&D, one has to
consider the possibility that what the rules _say_
and what they _intend_ aren't always the same thing.
I haven't been able to find my copy of the book you're
quoting - 1st Ed PHB - but I have a vague recollection
that it provided examples of multi-class levelling up
to make its meaning clearer. One of the improvements in
2nd Ed was to make the writing a lot clearer.
The ambiguity here is in what exactly is meant by the
word "professing". The usage here seems to mean "advancing
in". Note that "hit die" (singular) is assumed as the
default, which would imply that you're _not_ rolling for
two classes at once.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
> "Professing" IS a typo for "progressing". It was corrected in later
> reprints.
Ah, _that's_ what happened. I assumed it was just GG throwing
around unnecessarily large words without regard to their
meaning :-)
> As I had to get new PHs more than once, as old ones fell to bits
> and new players joined the group, I ended up with one in which the typo was
> corrected. The character is *progressing* one level as a cleric, so rolls a
> d8, and is *progressing* one level as a mage, so rolls a d4, and divides the
> total by the number of classes (2). He does not roll both dice when he
> progresses as a cleric, and both dice when progressing as a mage; he rolls
> the die appropriate to the class in which he is advancing a level. The
> example Geoffrey Brent quotes about "Morrison the Multi-Faceted" spells it
> out, step by step, in excruciatingly precise detail.
Though the bit I quoted is from 2nd Ed - despite John's
attribution to 2nd Ed, I think the text he's arguing from
("professing") is actually old 1st Ed.
Geoffrey Brent
Galdregon
wrote:
Could it possibly be that your book is the second edition (reprint) of
the first edition rule book perhaps??? If that was the case then it
would certainly solve your confusion.
Mike
Geoffrey Brent
> >
> >2nd edition, 1978? Are you sure of that date? That sounds like
> >_first_ edition to me.
>
> Well, I've got the book right in front of me and that's the data taken out of the inside >first page. It says in the
> introduction that it's the second edition of the rules, so I am assuming that it's the >second edition of the rules.
> Perhaps 'second edition of the rules' means 'first edition of the rules'; that seems as >likely to me as the
> interpretations I've been seeing of the aforementioned rule.
Are you referring to the Introduction, or perhaps to the Foreword?
Looking at my copy of the PHB (6th printing, 1980, (c) 1978),
I suspect that what you're referring to is the Foreword, and
that you've misread it. Unless the book was reorganised between
your printing and mine, the Introduction is on page seven - it's
the Foreword that's on the inside first page (p.2.)
And reading that Foreword, I think I can see where you might have
misread. It does not mention being a "second edition" anywhere.
What it _does_ say is: "If you're reading this, then you're a D&D
player - and this book is for you! This is the second release of
the AD&D series, and is designed to be a player's book in every
respect...it will complement the other two parts of the whole (the
previously released Monster Manual and the upcoming DMG)..."
Taken out of context, that "second release of the series" might be
interpreted as a second edition, but (to me, at least) the context
makes its meaning clear: this is the *second book in the series*
(following MM). That "second release of the series" should probably
be "second release *in* the series".
Is this the bit you're referring to, or was there something else?
I can't find anything that might be construed as "this is a second
edition" in the preface or introduction (pp. 5-7, my copy.)
Just to confuse things, it's _not_ the first incarnation of D&D -
there were D&D games before 1978 - but it is the first edition of
*advanced* Dungeons & Dragons.
And just in case anybody's seriously thinking of claiming that
there are no inconsistencies in AD&D... p. 6: "You will find no
pretentious dictums herein, no baseless limits arbitrarily placed
on female strength or male charisma..."
p. 9, strength table I: 14: Max. strength possible for a female
halfling character. 15: Max. strength for a female gnome. 16:
Max. strength for a female elf. 17: Max. for female dwarf, female
half-elf, or male halfling. 18/50: Max. for a female human. 18/75:
Max. for a male elf or female half-orc. 18/90: Max. for male half-
elf. 18/99: max. for male dwwarf, or male half-orc. 18/00: max.
human strength.
OTOH, there are indeed no limits placed on male charisma :-)
1st Edition really isn't as clearly written or carefully checked
as it might be, and there are instances where the literal
interpretation doesn't match the intended one.
Geoffrey Brent
Geoffrey Brent
Though actually the cutoff for female humans (in my copy
at least) was 18/50, so one in 432 female characters were
affected (ignoring the ones who have Str 18 but don't take
a fighter-class, and all the variant stat-generation
system.)
Geoffrey Brent
Speaker-to-Customers
Geoffrey Brent <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
(snip)
>Though the bit I quoted is from 2nd Ed - despite John's
>attribution to 2nd Ed, I think the text he's arguing from
>("professing") is actually old 1st Ed.
>
>Geoffrey Brent
As my server appears to be playing up - no sign of my posts
reaching the ng when I look at GlobalNews, and no updates all day
on my server compared with 74 on GlobalNews - I am repeating this
post via GN. If my server kicks into action and sends it after
all I apologise for wasting bandwidth, but last time it did
this my posts just vanished.
The Second Edition has no quotes from Gary Gygax in it
whatsoever. In the Credits it says "This is a derivative work
based on the original Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players
Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide by Gary Gygax and Unearthed
Arcana and other materials by Gary Gygax and others."
That's the last reference to him in the book. There had been
boardroom battles in TSR, he lost, and to some extent they tried
to write him out of history (although he's the one who got the
guest spot in "Futurama").
The Foreword to the Second Edition PH is signed by David "Zeb"
Cook, January 1989, and the DMs Guide by David "Zeb" Cook,
2/9/89. John's "2nd Edition" is a second reprint of the first
edition. The reason it says "2nd Edition" is that the first
printing of the PH suffered from appalling editing problems
and errors, and TSR had received a barrage of complaints. They
were trying to make it absolutely clear that the second printing
had been re-edited. It was "Version 1.2", whereas the true
Second Edition is "Version 2.0".
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
------------------------------------------
Posted via web with GlobalNews
The first european Free Usenet Web Portal
www.globalnews.it
------------------------------------------
Speaker-to-Customers
>attribution to 2nd Ed, I think the text he's arguing from
>("professing") is actually old 1st Ed.
>
>Geoffrey Brent
As my server appears to be playing up - no sign of my posts
Geoffrey Brent
John B. Williston <w...@zyan.com> wrote:
> Well, I've got the book right in front of me and that's the data taken
> out of the inside first page. It says in the introduction that it's
> the second edition of the rules, so I am assuming that it's the second
> edition of the rules. Perhaps 'second edition of the rules' means
> 'first edition of the rules'; that seems as likely to me as the
> interpretations I've been seeing of the aforementioned rule.
When you say 'second edition of the rules', is that in
fact a direct quote from your copy, or are you paraphrasing?
--
Geoffrey Brent
Email replies should be sent to g dot brent at
student dot unsw dot edu dot au. Mail sent to
my Deja address may not get to me.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
PlasmaJohn
John B. Williston <w...@zyan.com> wrote:
> >Furthermore, the 2nd Edition is somewhat clearer on the
> >matter:
>
> That's *much* clearer. There is no room for ambiguity therein that I
> saw. Thanks for posting that. Now I'm just puzzled as to how my copy
> of the Player's Handbook could be the first edition if it says in the
> introduction that it's the second edition?! How bizarre. At any rate,
> I now understand why BG does what it does. Thanks!
What we now call "1st Edition" is really '1st Edition AD&D'. The
'Advanced' meaning Advanced over the older 'Brown Book' D&D, so in
one sense, yes, it's the 2nd edition of D&D. What's known as "2nd
Edition" actually uses the term "2nd Edition" in it's title.
--
Comments are On behalf of myself only.
j (nodot) klar (aT) projectplasma (dOt) comNOUCE
John B. Williston
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>"Professing" IS a typo for "progressing".
Wow. That makes all the difference in the world. Now even the edition
of the PH that I have supports the BG scheme. Thanks!
John B. Williston
wrote:
>The Foreword to the Second Edition PH is signed by David "Zeb"
>Cook, January 1989, and the DMs Guide by David "Zeb" Cook,
>2/9/89. John's "2nd Edition" is a second reprint of the first
>edition. The reason it says "2nd Edition" is that the first
>printing of the PH suffered from appalling editing problems
>and errors, and TSR had received a barrage of complaints. They
>were trying to make it absolutely clear that the second printing
>had been re-edited. It was "Version 1.2", whereas the true
>Second Edition is "Version 2.0".
Aha! This is something I've wondered about for years, and now I
understand so many niggling things that had come up. Thanks!
Randy Graham
wrote:
>>[snip]
>---
>
>[1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
>ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
Well, I see the problem. You are reading from the Dungeons and
Dragons Player's Handbook 2nd edition. Others are reading from the
2nd edition Dungeon's and Dragons Player's Handbook. In other words,
you have the edited version of the Player's Handbook, but from the 1st
edition of AD&D. The 2nd edition AD&D rules came out in 1989, but the
edited/reprinted 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook came out in 1981
other thereabout. By 1989, Gary Gygax wasn't even involved any more.
RagManX
Speaker-to-Customers
"Geoffrey Brent" <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote in message
news:3A7D0FB6...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au...
It gradually crept upwards. I have one PH where it quotes 18/75 for female
humans, and an early Core Rules CD-ROM which had the 18/99 figure. That is
what set the figure for my last AD&D campaign. Now I check, my last PH has
all references to any ceiling on female strength removed altogether. I'd
never noticed before - it was only for quick player reference, as the CD-ROM
was used for most things. As no female human character had ever rolled the
00 for exceptional strength, it had never made any difference.
Probaly the Core Rules 2.0 CD-ROM, which I bought shortly before giving up
P&P AD&D, also had the ceiling removed, but I've uninstalled it again and
can't be bothered to re-install it to check. I had always been under the
impression it was BG which had removed that ceiling, but obviously I was
wrong.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Speaker-to-Customers
"John B. Williston" <w...@zyan.com> wrote in message
news:8cco7toc8f015r0kf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 18:37:16 +1100, Geoffrey Brent
> <g.b...@student.unsw.edu.NOS.PAM.au> wrote:
>
> >I don't have 2nd Ed, but the 1st Ed rules were in agreement with
> >the way BGII does it - and if the rules you're quoting below are
> >the 2nd Edition ones, I think you're reading them wrong.
>
> Well, which part of "1. Roll the hit die (or dice) appropriate to each
> class the character is professing." am I getting wrong? Does 'each'
> not mean 'each'? Or am I just supposed to assume that this should be
> qualified to say "...each class the character is professing THAT HAS
> LEVELED UP"? Frankly, I don't see how any of you can possibly support
> the BG interpretation as there is just no basis for it given the text
> of the rule I've cited.
>
> >> [1] Gygax, Gary. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, 2d.
> >> ed. Lake Geneva: TSR Games, 1978, 19.
> >
> >2nd edition, 1978? Are you sure of that date? That sounds like
> >_first_ edition to me.
>
> Well, I've got the book right in front of me and that's the data taken
> out of the inside first page. It says in the introduction that it's
> the second edition of the rules, so I am assuming that it's the second
> edition of the rules. Perhaps 'second edition of the rules' means
> 'first edition of the rules'; that seems as likely to me as the
> interpretations I've been seeing of the aforementioned rule.
>
> John
>
The Second Edition has no quotes from Gary Gygax in it whatsoever. In the
Credits it says "This is a derivative work based on the original Advanced
Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide by Gary
Gygax and Unearthed Arcana and other materials by Gary Gygax and others."
That's the last reference to him in the book. There had been boardroom
battles in TSR, he lost, and to some extent they tried to write him out of
history (although he's the one who got the guest spot in "Futurama").
The Foreword to the Second Edition PH is signed by David "Zeb" Cook, January
1989, and the DMs Guide by David "Zeb" Cook, 2/9/89. Your "2nd Edition" is
a second reprint of the first edition. The reason it says "2nd Edition" is
that the first printing of the PH suffered from appalling editing problems
and errors, and TSR had received a barrage of complaints. They were trying
to make it absolutely clear that the second printing had been re-edited. It
was "Version 1.2", whereas the true Second Edition is "Version 2.0".
Paul Speaker-to-Customers