Multiclassing: What I'm hoping for

[GX.Sigma]

As someone who plays a lot of 4e and never played a lot of 3e: 4e-style multiclassing just sucks, and I can quite see the appeal of 3e-style multiclassing.

 

[Raith5]

I have played MC characters in all systems of D&D and 4th ed multiclassing was hopelessly weak (and I think it cost way to many feats to have the real feel of MCing). And of course 3rd ed had massive problems with combing martial and spell casting classes.

For me 4th ed hybrid characters have been the most balanced form of MC. It has problems around divergent attributes but I thought it worked well because the action economy allowed me to play a ranger/cleric who attacked with his standard actions and healed allies with minor actions (the Raven Queen takes life with standard actions and gives life with minor actions).

However as hybrids basically break up characters into two trees of AEUD powers this wouldnt translate into a system where these powers do not exist - at least in the default.

 

[Elf Witch]

What I want.

1. You need access to a trainer and time to train as the default rather than as an optional rule.
2. As El Mahdi stated, class armor and weapon proficiencies and save bonuses, etc. take time to learn. Like him, I also used training feats. However, I would like to go with something built in from the start as per Star Wars Saga multiclasssing which does not grant the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies. The armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are listed as starting feats and the character gets to take one upon multiclassing and can take an additional feat when they learn a new feat.
3. The one thing that I would do is make class save/Defense bonuses as startings feats using Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflex or only grant the class save bonus to the starting class and require multi-class characters to use their starting class bonus and have to take the feats.

One of my issues is with training is that it often puts a burden on the player because the DM or the other players make it hard to get that training.

I had a DM who did this in an Eberron campaign we were playing. One of the players wanted to go druid, wizard into a prestige class. Because of what was going on in the game he didn't get his first level in wizard until eighth.

It was good for role playing but tactical it sucked. His first level spells were very weak they often had no effect against any enemy and it put back his getting his prestige class until I think eleventh.

So I would rather see a rule like this as an optional rule.

I like multiclassing because it gives you the ability to really do your character concept.

I don't like when players cherry pick but I also don't like any kind of power build that was built just so that character has no weaknesses. I cringe anytime I hear a player say I got this build off a char op thread.

One of my issues in multiclassing is how to work it at first level. If your concept calls for both classes at first level to make story sense it is kind of strange that you don't have access to them. For example I had a concept of a sorcerer who was hiding her sorcerer power by being a wizard. In the game sorcerers were burned at the stake. In her background when her sorcerer powers developed to protect her , her parents sent her to her uncle a wizard to be trained. So at first level I should have had access to some of the features of both classes.

 

[Greg K]

One of my issues is with training is that it often puts a burden on the player because the DM or the other players make it hard to get that training.

I had a DM who did this in an Eberron campaign we were playing. One of the players wanted to go druid, wizard into a prestige class. Because of what was going on in the game he didn't get his first level in wizard until eighth.

It was good for role playing but tactical it sucked. His first level spells were very weak they often had no effect against any enemy and it put back his getting his prestige class until I think eleventh.

So I would rather see a rule like this as an optional rule.

I only care about the roleplaying and verisimilitude of the what is happening in the game world. No pre-planned builds.

As for Prestige Classes and the rest that follows:
I prefer class variants, additional classes, and in rare instance 3.0 variant zero level multiclassing at first level. In my opinion, Jumping from a single class at first level into multliclassing should be rare and most 3e Prcs did not need to be (and I hope PrCs stay optional and campaign dependent. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were one of the deal breakers for me with 4e).

I like multiclassing because it gives you the ability to really do your character concept.

I don't like when players cherry pick but I also don't like any kind of power build that was built just so that character has no weaknesses. I cringe anytime I hear a player say I got this build off a char op thread.

One of my issues in multiclassing is how to work it at first level. If your concept calls for both classes at first level to make story sense it is kind of strange that you don't have access to them. For example I had a concept of a sorcerer who was hiding her sorcerer power by being a wizard. In the game sorcerers were burned at the stake. In her background when her sorcerer powers developed to protect her , her parents sent her to her uncle a wizard to be trained. So at first level I should have had access to some of the features of both classes.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'd actually like to see both forms of multiclassing: simultaneous and sequential. I think both are useful ways to represent different character concepts. While they both have their issues, none of them are insurmountable, IMHO.

For example: Level-dipping - Each class "reserves" some abilities for starting first-level characters, which are not immediately available to characters picking up the class later. I believe SWSE did this.

Conversely, class features could be labeled as major or minor and simultaneous multiclassing characters could choose x major and y minor from their component classes.

The idea that Wizards mentioned...(3 starter levels)...I dunno. On the one hand, it mechanically could act like both/either of the above. I'm just not sure that I like a Fighter-Mage "wobbling" back and forth throughout its career OR the idea that you are third level before you are a real hero. Oh well, really hard to judge before I've seen it in play.

Just a shout to any WOTC designers who may read this...please for the love of dice...just make sure that multiclassing is easy for DMs making up NPCs. Prestige classes sounded great, but man, if its going to be as tough as 3e again...just skip it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I only care about the roleplaying and verisimilitude of the what is happening in the game world. No pre-planned builds.

As for Prestige Classes and the rest that follows:
I prefer class variants, additional classes, and in rare instance 3.0 variant zero level multiclassing at first level. In my opinion, Jumping from a single class at first level into multliclassing should be rare and most 3e Prcs did not need to be (and I hope PrCs stay optional and campaign dependent. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies were one of the deal breakers for me with 4e).

I am big into role playing and verisimilitude. But sometimes I have an idea that requires a planned build to be able to role play the concept I want. I am really big into giving players freedom and choices to build the character they really want to play.

Now I also like it to make sense in the story. Which is why I have often questioned players and asked okay explain why your character would do this. Usually what comes out is well I get this ability. At that point I know they are usually picking it just for the ability and not the flavor and I will either veto it or make a prc class with some of the abilities they want that fits the flavor of their character.

I think PRC can add a lot of flavor to the game. I think to control abuse of them is for the DM to decide which ones are in his world.

If you want the verisimilitude then as the DM you work with the player to make sure he gets some opportunity to get the training in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D, when you were multiclass, you declared it at the beginning of your career, at the same time that single classed characters chose their single class.

I'd like to see that be the default in D&D Next, and I'd also like to see a limit of 2 on the number of classes you can have.

So when you build the character, you choose either a single class, or a pair of classes. If you start at first level, you start out with a level in one of those classes, and the "level 0" (non-level based) basics of the class (weapon/armor proficiencies, skill choices).

Then each level you gain, you choose which class to put that level in. Maybe there's a requirement that you have to stay within 2 or 3 levels, maybe there isn't.

But there should be none of this stuff from 3e where you could be a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Druid. Just two classes. And you make a commitment to those two, when you make the character, and you don't go around dipping into a class for a level or two.

That's the way things worked in the old days -- you chose to be multiclass at character creation -- and it would solve about 80% of the problems with 3e-style multiclassing.

I could get behind this, but there's a few other things I'd do:

Move away from the clunky 3e-style level-by-level system (1 level Fighter, next level Thief, 3rd level Fighter again, etc.) and just have the player divide the XP received into the classes on a pre-declared* ratio e.g. 75% go to Fighter, 25% to Thief - and then just let each class bump when it gets enough XP. Side effect: this also moves away from additive levels. To me, a F2-T1 is NOT a 3rd-level character as 3e would define it.

* - a player can change the ratio between adventures if desired.

From experience I can tell you this division system works really well in our 1e-style game. It slows down your overall advancement but that's a good thing: you're a jack of two trades rather than a master of one.

As for the limit of 2 classes, I also have the same limit. For the rare occasions where a character for whatever reason wants to give up a class (e.g. an Assassin who has turned Good, a forsworn Paladin, etc.) I invented a high-level Cleric spell Renouncement that entirely strips away a class and all abilities granted by it. (and before you try to break it, note that it can only be cast on a willing recipient; and targets that are charmed, dominated, geased etc. are not considered willing) Something like this might fit in with the character-development crowd, in that you could start out as a Fighter-Thief but 10 levels in you see the light of Thor and decide to Renounce Thief and become a Cleric instead, keeping the Fighter.

Lanefan

 

[AlioTheFool]

I've said it often but my preference is for Neverwinter Nights style multiclassing. I didn't play much 3.x, so I don't know exactly how it worked, but obviously NWN was at least based on it.

The premise is that every class has features along the life of the class that make it appealing to take higher levels of it, but not over or underpowered to grab a level or two if it meets your character concept.

I have always advocated for building the game for the majority and ignoring what min-maxing players will do. The fact is, if someone wants to loophole their character into a superhero, there are always going to be things they'll find to do in order to achieve their goals. Crippling the majority from being able to play out their character concepts to give less avenues for those players to loophole just never made sense to me.

If every class has features that increase in appeal as the levels increase, yet enough abilities at lower levels to make legitimate and fair characters even for dabblers, then everyone gets to be happy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now, I thought 4e multiclassing was not very good.

I disagree.

Hybrids lack flexibility and compatibility. The two half-classes together are much less than the sum of their parts generally speaking. There's a few situations where that's not as true, but it's more true than not. They're also inflexible -- you can't grow dynamically or organically as a character.

Feats are too high a price to pay for the privilege of just replacing a power. They're a lot of levels and resources spent for, effectively, nothing that great. They also require awkward retraining -- you forget a power you've used for many levels, and replace it with a new power that you've never used before.

I prefer 3e's level-by-level system. It had some excesses, but it's entirely possible to curb the excesses and preserve the organic, even, natural growth of your character and their abilities. Things that have been mentioned about 5e -- like less front-loading and bounded accuracy -- help ameliorate the problems with 3e's system a lot, and have additional benefits to boot.

I don't know what the issue is with a multiclass system that is "like 3e, but balanced."

 

[TwoSix]

3e style multiclassing, lots of classes, starting proficiencies not based on 1st level class choice.

Barring that, a class-theme dichotomy with class and theme abilities being swappable.

Also, you have to state what class you're training in as soon as you gain a level. If you get to Fighter 4, you have to say as soon as you hit 4th that your 5th level is going to be Wizard. This gives the DM time to work in training etc.