Greetings, ye noblefolk of Electric Ladyland!

In the discussion of dual-class characters in Birthright,
an interesting question came up: how long does it take to
become a 1st-level member of the new class? I thought about
it and here's what I think.

Fighter should be the easiest class to become. There is
little difference between a 0th-level soldier and a first-
level fighter. All the fighter has to pick up is training
in wearing heavy armours (esp if he was a wizard or thief
first) and some rudimentary training with all weapons to
become familiar with them (to get the -2 nonproficiency
penalty instead of the one of his first class). As the
character will not get new proficiency slots until he
exceeds his former level, specialization is not something
that must be learned then.
Adventuring characters that are often in combat should
not need more than about one month of drilling by a
weaponsmaster to become a fighter. But it will be fun
to play up on this period - being bullied around by
a drill-sergeant, who has little to no respect for the
fact you are the king - he's the master here - and col-
lapsing beneath the weight of that heavy chainmail coat
in the mud...
So, all that has to be done is expending one character
action of training.

Thief characters are a step further from the 0-th level
masses, for they have certain special abilities others
do not, and they receive the bonus nonweapon proficiency
of Thieves Cant, all of which must be learned and trained.
Additional weapons training might also be necessary if the
character was a wizard first.
In order to become a thief, I suggest evening after evening
of frequenting seady taverns, spying on courtiers, roughin'
it with the members of the thieves' guild etc. I'm not sure
how to translate this into game terms but I think that an
adventure action each season for two consecutive seasons
should be enough.

Priest characters must learn to wield the powers of their god
and 'learn the gospel'. This is an arduous task and will take
much time. At the very least, the character will stay in a
monastery for a full year before he can wield the power of a
first level priest, but this could be much longer, say a year
or three. In all of this time he cannot concern himself with
anything but his training.
Notice that it makes it a little less appealing for a regent
to become a priest - he must miss 12+ actions!

And wizardry, finally, is the highest calling on Cerilia. This
should take years and years of study and initiation. An extre-
mely talented character might become a magician in three years,
but becoming a true mage, one of the few dozen in Cerilia, should
take no less than five years of uninterrupted studying, and per-
haps much more.

What I have left out of this is the ruler aspect of a class: fighters
can lead law and armies as no other (if they are blooded), and priests
can sway the masses with their fiery sermons. This will make becoming
a regent in that class even harder. Therefore, while three years to
become a magician may seem long, it is easier than becoming a regent
priest with all of its responsibilities. And in the rare event a cha-
racter switches to Bard, it will also take a long time - the standard
bard receives no less than 4 bonus nonweapon proficiencies.

I enjoy dual-classing, and don't think the rules are bad as they are.
But becoming a first-level member of a class SHOULD take some time.

The dearest character I ever had (and still have) is a Rjurik ranger
I now am playing. I plan to switch to bard once I have reached level
13. The odds of rolling up a character with the scores required for
that are about 0,018% or so, but the DM was kind enough to give them
to me just like that. I'm not blooded as a compensation. But this
gives me as a player a long-term perspective on my character and her
abilities. The ranger 13/bard 13 can do all the things I like, without
unbalancing the game.

Please let me hear what you think about this.
Martijn