D&D 5E Multiclassing in Next

Li Shenron said:

I just can't possibly understand how you guys want a game where you have "old stuff" on your character sheet that is useless.

Click to expand...

It is literally the ONLY option with Vancian Spellcasting as presented in 3E. Those low level spells, if allowed to scale to the point where they're useful at high levels, gives the Wizard way too many options. When you have 30+ viable options and the fighter has 1 (swing his weapon) then you don't have a system that works. You have a wacky wizard show, with supporting cast.

For the record, I'd be for the Wizard sacrificing, say, all of his third level spells to get a spell that's as effective as the fighter swinging his sword, and recharges once every five minutes. That seems a fair way to balance the Wizard's limited awesome against the Fighter's continual competence, and still utilize the lower level spells slots.

I'm going to jump in here, without reading the whole thread. Skimmed, but not every line or every post. Yes, I will be that guy.

The simplicity of 3E multiclassing is definitely appealing. It takes up no rules "brainspace," it's a straightforward concept, and easy to implement.

Having a whole "multiclassing table" for every class is onerous, confusing, and would defeat the purpose of simplifying the rules. No alternate tables.

My thought: why not combine 4E and 3E multiclassing a little bit?

In order to level up in a second class, you must meet a Prerequsite. That Prerequisite would be the Multiclass Feat. That Feat gives you one Ability from the class.

On the one hand, this means once you gain the new class the feat becomes "wasted." However, this allows the slow(er) progression of class abilities without needing to create whole new tables!

For example:

I'm a Fighter2, and decide I want to "dip" into wizard. When I level up to 3rd-level, I take the Multiclass (Wizard) feat.

Luckily, the Wizard class has already been organized into discrete Abilities at Level 1: Spellbook, Arcane Magic, Cantrips, and Arcane Knowledge. I can only choose one, and since Spellbook and Arcane Magic are interdependent, it's useless to choose either of those. I choose Cantrips.

So, I'm a Fighter3 with knowledge of three minor spells from the wizard's spell list.

When I level up to 4th-level, I can choose to take a level of Fighter or a level of Wizard. I've spent a level studying the ways of magic (verisimilitude), and I've had a level to enjoy partial wizard abilities (mechanical balance).

I become a Fighter3/Wizard1 with a "wasted" feat that allowed me to multiclass, but the full abilities of a 1st-level wizard and 3rd-level fighter.

This is also symmetrical.

I'm a [/b]Wizard1[/b] who takes the Multiclass (Fighter) feat at 1st-level and choose between Combat Superiority and Fighting Style. Fighting Style depends on Combat Superiority, so I choose Combat Superiority and know the Deadly Strike and Parry combat maneuvers. (However, I do not have the Armor or Weapon Proficiencies... yet)

At 2nd-level I take the level in Fighter (gaining Fighting Style and all Proficiencies), and continue to take Fighter levels.

At 4th-level I'm a Wizard1/Fighter3 with the same abilities, the same number of useful feats, and the same bonuses as a Fighter3/Wizard1!

Perhaps Weapon and Armor Proficiencies should be called out as "Abilities" that can be chosen from?

Of course, this idea would require some revising of the math (possibly attack bonuses, Ability Adjustments, maybe Hit Die, etc.) and some organization (making sure that Class Abilities are super-clear and work semi-independently), but I don't see that as a bad thing: it forces the design to be clear!

In my head, some version of this would be the ideal multiclassing.

While I dislike 4Ed's feat based multiclassing (at least, as a SOLE option), I can easily accept some kind of Prereq feat for multiclassing with full benefits. One "benefit" for some would be that it sets absolute limits the amount of classes that can be taken and the pace at which it occurs.

It need not be a wasted feat, though. The qualifier could be a "Special:_____" line in certain root feats of major feat trees.

For example, Power Attack could contain a line that says "Special: a PC with this feat may multiclass into any one of Fighter, Barbarian or Warlord." If for some reason the PC wants to multiclass into two or all three of those classes, he'd have to take another, different Feat that contains a similar qualifier line.

keterys said:

"Take the better of the two" is an interesting theory. So that sounds like a fighter 15 will be much better at fighting than a fighter 10 / barbarian 5.

Click to expand...

An F-15 would be better at pretty much everything than a F-10/Bbn-5 as the latter would amount to an F-10 with extras. An F-10/Cleric-5 would be more useful as the second class would at least give it some options, but would still be way behind a F-15.

Which I guess would match well with the effectiveness of multiclassing with a caster, and just mean that multiclassing is almost always a poor idea from a performance standpoint, but a reasonable option for adding character breadth.

Click to expand...

That sounds like 3e-think again.

To use your same example a F-10/Bbn-5 would not be expected to keep up with a 15th-level party - it'd run with a party of 10th-11th level types.

That said, I certainly want multiclass types to end up a bit weaker than single-class, in tradeoff for the breadth of abilities they can get.

Still potentially a trap for those who don't understand the system enough to avoid system problems, and a potential paralysis point for new players.

Click to expand...

Depends how clearly it's explained, I suppose.

It'd still be an advantage to drop people planning out their characters level by level before play, to make sure they get all the benefits from the classes they want, get into the right prestige classes, etc.

Click to expand...

This doesn't quite parse. If you mean "do away with all the pre-planning", I'm right there with you. If you mean something else, please clarify.

Lanefan

jeremy_dnd said:

Having a whole "multiclassing table" for every class is onerous, confusing, and would defeat the purpose of simplifying the rules. No alternate tables.

My thought: why not combine 4E and 3E multiclassing a little bit?

In order to level up in a second class, you must meet a Prerequsite. That Prerequisite would be the Multiclass Feat. That Feat gives you one Ability from the class.

For example:

I'm a Fighter2, and decide I want to "dip" into wizard. When I level up to 3rd-level, I take the Multiclass (Wizard) feat.

Luckily, the Wizard class has already been organized into discrete Abilities at Level 1: Spellbook, Arcane Magic, Cantrips, and Arcane Knowledge. I can only choose one, and since Spellbook and Arcane Magic are interdependent, it's useless to choose either of those. I choose Cantrips.

Click to expand...

I actually think it will be something like this, only without requiring feats. And with those discrete abilities organized into a table

I can completely see the verisimilitude argument people are making, but I'm willing to hand wave that in favor of more balanced multi-classing. My 2e fighter-wizard was rather overpowered, but his 3e version was lame (brutally illustrated in a fight where I could only hit the BBEG on a natural 20, and only beat his SR on a natural 20, which wouldn't have happened if he were single-classed in either.)

I also think the idea of non-scaling but "upgradable" spells (use a higher level slot for more damage/better effects rather than caster level automatically improving a spell) is both a great solution for quadratic wizards and dealing with the F10/W1 situations.

I think they've made it clear there's a difference between spells of a certain level and spells that use the spell slot of a higher level. It has been mentioned a few times, though its never been elaborated on. After all they've mentioned so many times how Fireball is fixed at 5d6 damage as strictly a 3rd level spell, but could do more if it used a higher level spell slot.

It seems that it's probable that a multiclass character with a couple levels in Wizard could prepare a spell as a 2nd level spell or higher, but couldn't actually select spells that are higher than 1st level off of the Wizard spell list. All they could do is just use those 1st level spells augmented to a higher level. Maybe the 13th level fighter/ 2nd wizard has a super Grease spell that covers 60' by 60' square, which is impressive for someone who's dabbled into magic a bit, but in the end it's just a Grease spell.

In comparison the single class Wizards can use other things like Web, or Evard's Black Tentacles, or Wall of Stone instead, but generally wouldn't bother with Grease even if it covered such as huge area.

Also the Wizard that dabbled a bit into Fighter might be able to do a Deadly Strike with 2d8 extra damage. But the single class fighter of the same character has a lot more deadly tricks than just Deadly Strike, and possibly has abilities that allow them to combine some maneuvers for free expertise dice, making that extra 2d8 look completely amateur.

So here's what I think will keep all the PCs powers and abilities level-appropriate across every level:

At 1st level the PC is Character Level 1
He begins with a Race, Class, Background, Specialty, an Equipment package, you give your guy a name, and the DM puts him in the 1st level portion of the world.

At Character Levels 2 and beyond...
You drop everything from the previous levels.
You choose a new level appropriate Race, Class, Background, Specialty, Equipment package, you give your guy a new name, and your DM puts him in the new level's appropriate portion of the world.

All I'm saying is growth presumes continuity. You may not tie your own shoes anymore, but there might come a time when you're happy you learned to do so.

howandwhy99 said:

At Character Levels 2 and beyond...
You drop everything from the previous levels.
You choose a new level appropriate Race, Class, Background, Specialty, Equipment package, you give your guy a new name, and your DM puts him in the new level's appropriate portion of the world.

Click to expand...

So why bother leveling up at all? If the world levels up with you, you didn't really level up.

howandwhy99 said:

All I'm saying is growth presumes continuity. You may not tie your own shoes anymore, but there might come a time when you're happy you learned to do so.

Click to expand...

Because now I wear slip on shoes? Your analogy should tell it to the cleaning lady on Monday.

JRRNeiklot said:

So why bother leveling up at all? If the world levels up with you, you didn't really level up.

Click to expand...

I didn't take it too seriously. I thought he was just being sarcastic. I could be wrong though.