Combination Classes or Sub Classes

[Old_Guy]

Been playing the game for a few weeks with the friends and family. And we were thinking, in the interest of keeping the game as "basic" as possible, for the newer and younger players, to not use the sub classes. But rather, allow more combination classes. For example, if someone wanted to be a "Paladin" that would be a Fighter/Cleric, etc. That way, you only have to understand four classes, rather than a multitude of classes and sub classes. Any thoughts?

[SmootRK]

There are game mechanics reasons why some combo-classes are not offered.

For instance, Fighter-Cleric. A straight cleric is a better fighter (or at least about same) than a Fighter-Cleric at most experience point equivalents. Once you add the two class experience point requirements together then compare, you can see the difference.

So for your Paladin example, better to be a militant straight cleric. Perhaps given the specific Deity choice, you might grant a certain weapon allowance (such as a spear for cleric of Ares) or something else that seems appropriate for the deity choice.

Another example is the Fighter Thief. Similar situation where the combo class is a less effective Fighter than a straight thief.

There are threads that can be dug up that may illustrate the finer points of such comparisons.

But all that said, there are some omitted combos. MU-Cleric is discussed in the Old Monsters as New Races. Also, you might consider quasi-classes as an addition. They allow for a wide variety of additional archetypes without too much extra baggage (newest version located here: http://www.basicfantasy.org/showcase.cgi?sid=51 )... the quasi-classes basically just layer on extra abilities for an XP cost. And yes, Paladin (Holy) is in there, along with Rangers (Hunter) among other ideas.

[Old_Guy]

Thanks, I will look into it!

[Dimirag]

The Class Comparison File is a weird file I put a long time ago comparing the core and combo classes based on XP and level showing their values so you can compare them at specific XP points and decide if they are worthy to be used in your games.

Using the Quasi-Classes is a good way to go.

[artikid]

Granted that all that has been said is true, and not withstanding the fact that I wrote some special classes, I still think that the game works best with only the four basic classes and including "non-optimal" combo-classes (like fighter/cleric and fighter/thief).
Using some of the options provided in the downloads page (Fighter options, thief options...) adds some little oomph that may make those combo-classes more appealing (especially weapon specialization, and the fact that fighter/thieves could potentially use their skill -at a penalty- in heavier armor.)

[Old_Guy]

All compelling points. It may be easier for the younger, or less experienced to grasp the class options. Because they just expand on the existing basic four classes. The sub or quasi classes, can make it a bit more, for lack of a better word, more advanced.

[Old_Guy]

In that regard, a Militant Cleric could be a good, if not a great "Paladin", as stated earlier, or a Fighter/Thief as a "Ranger", depending on what the player has in mind. Of course, the player would have to realize the XP cost, compared to benefit.
Sounds like a good excuse for us to run two campaigns!

[SmootRK]

I have run games for my own children as young as 7 years old, and honestly they did fine with the options. Also, thinking back I got started with Basic D&D around 10 years old, and although we did not have solid guidance on how to play, we got by... and essentially understood everything. The classes were easy, and jumped right into AD&D class options (playing essentially a morph of both systems, at least in reqards to classes and such... in fact for a very long time thought it was exactly the same game... just advanced).

Basically saying, give your youthful individuals benefit of doubt that they can "get it".

[Longman]

Hi Old Guy.

There's a number of other options than using multi-classes, or the optional classes.

You could give each character a particular magic item that accentuated their character concept. For a ranger type, you could just use the Fighter class but give the character a cloak that enables them to move silently and hide in shadows like a thief of the same level. For an assassin, you can use the regular thief class but give them a short sword that did triple damage on a sneak attack instead of double. For a paladin, you could use the fighter class but give them a holy symbol that allowed them to cast Cure Light Wound once per day. And so on.

You could also accentuate character concepts 'in game'. For example, if someone is playing the wizard, they are the one to whom you reveal all the arcane information. The fighter is the one who assesses the strength of the goblin ranks. The thief is the one who notices the shady character at the bar. You don't need to use rules for that stuff if you don't want to. You can just decide that's what happens. Or, you could use 'Ability Rolls', or even give the characters various 'background skills to make them more unique.

viewtopic.php?t=84 - Background Skills

I agree with what Smoot says - younger players will actually get their heads around the more complex optional class rules, if they have the chance. But if you do decide that you want to stick to a game with just the four classes, their are plenty of other ways to differentiate each individual character.

[Old_Guy]

The issue really isn't that the kids couldn't handle everything, I know they can. The thing is, I wanted to be able to just get them all their own copy of the basic core rules, with as little added as possible. It is looking like we are going with the class options and quasi classes. Simple and expands things just enough.
Thanks all of you for you input thus far. It is nice to get helpful responses from good people that genuinely love playing the game!