D&D (2024) 50th Anniversary: 6E in 2024?

[Mirrorrorrim]

Absolutely.

Where would multiclassing land in this soup where you can get everything relevant to that new subclass (it has to have something that makes it feel like that subclass) with a single level dip? Ignored as a table preference? Altered? Not allowed?

 

[CleverNickName]

Where would multiclassing land in this soup where you can get everything relevant to that new subclass (it has to have something that makes it feel like that subclass) with a single level dip? Ignored as a table preference? Altered? Not allowed?

Yep, that's the rub. Having all class features available at 1st level (even if they are nerfed or hobbled) isn't really compatible with multiclassing. But that isn't an argument against 1st level characters getting more features--it's an argument against the current multiclassing rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yep, that's the rub. Having all class features available at 1st level (even if they are nerfed or hobbled) isn't really compatible with multiclassing. But that isn't an argument against 1st level characters getting more features--it's an argument against the current multiclassing rules.

Which I actually like. I could see different ways to do it though. Probably if you can chose a multiclass subclass right at level 1. And at some later point you can chose a 2nd and maybe even a 3rd subclass...
A bit like 4e' paragon path and epic destiny. And later the option of dual classing.

The only alteration I'd do would be that there are no special paragon classes or epic destinies.

Instead you can always either:

• pick up a 2nd/3rd/4th class.
• improve your 2nd/3rd class.
• take a specialization.

An example.
You start as a fighter level 1.
You can now chose subclass wizard or become a battlemaster fighter.
Lets assume you became a fighter/wizard. Now you can chose to become a battlemaster now, become illusionist. Or improve the wizard subclass. Or even take a 3rd class.
At level 13 you get to improve wizard or take another subclass of either wizard or fighter.
The features you get from subclass or multiclass spread over 6 levels.
The wizard would grant two spellcasting levels. So you end up at 6th level spells at level 17.

Or something like that. Maybe features of the first subclass you take spread over the whole 20 levels. The advantage of that approach would be multiclassing or subclassing right from the start. You improve your main class features over 20 levels. You can chose to go deep or wide: Specialization or multiclassing at different points.

Disadvantage: its less flexible because there are certain decision points.
That could actually be fixed by allowing to chose when you get some abilities.

In a perfect system, you might have heroic features, paragon features and heroic features.
At every level while you are heroic you can chose any of the 5 heroic features. If you got all of them you become paragon and now can chose between them and so on.
A bit like pathfinder 2e class feats, but less features overall. Eventually you get all of them, you just chose the order you want to get it. And way less fiddly.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Yep, that's the rub. Having all class features available at 1st level (even if they are nerfed or hobbled) isn't really compatible with multiclassing. But that isn't an argument against 1st level characters getting more features--it's an argument against the current multiclassing rules.

I've had players at my tables who never single-class in any ongoing campaigns. They even multi-class for one-shot builds.

As much as I don't like the brokenness that comes with it, multi-classing does something unique that I cannot deny to my players.

If you play a single class and subclass, you are on a railroad of things you can do. Outside of RP choices and tactical decisions, you're playing a character with the same capabilities as anyone else choosing that class/subclass combo.

But multiclassing switches things up, on the player's terms. The player chooses what and when they are investing in other abilities, and personalizes their experiences far more. It's like more advanced Feats. For example, starting with 2-3 levels of paladin, and taking the rest in a Charisma full-caster like bard or sorcerer means you get so many spell slots for smites. That is a very different experience from that of a single class paladin. Full armor and mostly full casting, that can be used for problem solving or smites? It's very satisfying. It may no longer be a rare multiclass build, but the spell options really broaden your effectiveness.

 

[CleverNickName]

Honestly, I would prefer to get rid of multiclassing altogether--it just doesn't suit my tastes. I'd much prefer a "classless" system where we replace all class features for all characters with feat trees or such. I'd even settle for a framework to build my own 20-level hybrid classes.

 

[Horwath]

Where would multiclassing land in this soup where you can get everything relevant to that new subclass (it has to have something that makes it feel like that subclass) with a single level dip? Ignored as a table preference? Altered? Not allowed?

if it's limited to bonus proficiencies/bonus spells and some minor features, it should not be a problem.

if your sorcerer gets +1 HP per sorcerer level, that is no problem. if you dip one level, you got 1 extra HP.

 

[Horwath]

Honestly, I would prefer to get rid of multiclassing altogether--it just doesn't suit my tastes. I'd much prefer a "classless" system where we replace all class features for all characters with feat trees or such. I'd even settle for a framework to build my own 20-level hybrid classes.

yeah, but wait now for the train of comments; that is not D&D!!

maybe classes should just be suggestions of features that you can take. For anyone who does not to bother with building it's own character from zero.

simple 4 class frame:

full caster, d6, no base armor; 1st-9th level spells, extra attack at level 11
2/3rd caster, d8, light base armor: 1st-7th level spells, extra attacks at levels 9,17
1/2 caster, d10, medium base armor: 1st-5th level spells, extra attacks at levels 7,13,19
martial, d12, heavy base armor, extra attack at levels 5,9,13,17

skilled character can take 2 skills for every armor category lost.

the just add appropriate number of feat slots for each of those 4 classes and you can build a character you want with never needing to think about multiclassing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yeah, but wait now for the train of comments; that is not D&D!!

maybe classes should just be suggestions of features that you can take. For anyone who does not to bother with building it's own character from zero.

simple 4 class frame:

full caster, d6, no base armor; 1st-9th level spells, extra attack at level 11
2/3rd caster, d8, light base armor: 1st-7th level spells, extra attacks at levels 9,17
1/2 caster, d10, medium base armor: 1st-5th level spells, extra attacks at levels 7,13,19
martial, d12, heavy base armor, extra attack at levels 5,9,13,17

skilled character can take 2 skills for every armor category lost.

the just add appropriate number of feat slots for each of those 4 classes and you can build a character you want with never needing to think about multiclassing.

I have seen systems not unlike this. Usually class is replaced by archetype.

There is room in D&D for both.
I'd turn it around though.

Classes are standard. And you get a class build option.

I'd even go as far and make spellcaster a feature you can take several times. Each time you take it, your maximum spell level increases by 1. Or your spellcaster level increass by 1 now and by one on the next level. So to be a full caster you take that feature every other level.
Or at each level you get 2 feature points and increasing spell level costs 1 of those points. Maybe 2 if it increases spell level. Extra attack costs 2 points or needs a fighting style.

Actually this is not too far away from multiclassing as it is to be honest. The advantage would be that you could get easier access to extra attack.

But then you could build classes in a way that some levels can be taken interchangeably. There is no har to allow fighters to pick their level two over their level 1. Or the rogue to picl their level 2 over level 1. Or in many cases pick their level 3 including subclass feature at level 1. The fighter gives up fighting style and second wind for action surge. The rogue loses sneak attack and gets cunning action instead.

 

[Clint_L]

I have seen systems not unlike this. Usually class is replaced by archetype.

There is room in D&D for both.
I'd turn it around though.

Classes are standard. And you get a class build option.

I'd even go as far and make spellcaster a feature you can take several times. Each time you take it, your maximum spell level increases by 1. Or your spellcaster level increass by 1 now and by one on the next level. So to be a full caster you take that feature every other level.
Or at each level you get 2 feature points and increasing spell level costs 1 of those points. Maybe 2 if it increases spell level. Extra attack costs 2 points or needs a fighting style.

Actually this is not too far away from multiclassing as it is to be honest. The advantage would be that you could get easier access to extra attack.

But then you could build classes in a way that some levels can be taken interchangeably. There is no har to allow fighters to pick their level two over their level 1. Or the rogue to picl their level 2 over level 1. Or in many cases pick their level 3 including subclass feature at level 1. The fighter gives up fighting style and second wind for action surge. The rogue loses sneak attack and gets cunning action instead.

Systems like this tend to produce more homogeneity, not less. The class system enforces diversity; classless systems converge towards a few optimal builds. I've played games that used systems like this and grew to dislike them because every character felt so same-y.

In D&D, there is plenty of room for character customization even within class and subclass. There are still backgrounds, species, feats equipment, and various choices, from spells to maneuvers, to invocations, and so on. Weapon mastery, soon.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Systems like this tend to produce more homogeneity, not less. The class system enforces diversity; classless systems converge towards a few optimal builds. I've played games that used systems like this and grew to dislike them because every character felt so same-y.

In D&D, there is plenty of room for character customization even within class and subclass. There are still backgrounds, species, feats equipment, and various choices, from spells to maneuvers, to invocations, and so on. Weapon mastery, soon.

I totally agree. I like class systems.