D&D 5E New L&L for 22/1/13 D&D Next goals, part 3

[am181d]

Sounds like they should be looking at 1e/2e style multiclassing to deliver the stated aims of balanced characters that are effective without making the GM regret allowing them. 3e stlye multiclassing is much more problematic.

In my experience, 1e/2e style multi-classing was RIDICULOUSLY unbalanced. The Fighter/Magic-User/Thief could basically do everything the Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief could do, and do it almost exactly as well. (Maybe they were one level behind.) The seeming counter-balance was that only nonhumans could multi-class, and they'd eventually encounter racial level limits.

(This also exposes one of the biggest logic bombs in 1e/2e. The long lived races advanced in all of their classes at once before hitting an artificial ceiling. The short lived humans could advance as long as they wanted in one class, then switch to another, etc. Clearly, that should have been swapped, except they wanted to model the fighter/mage elf of the basic game.)

 

[Klaus]

I prefer a Specialty-based "dabbling", or from-the-start Hybrids (both methods in 4e). Not really a fan of level-by-level multiclassing.

 

[gyor]

I don't think that it will be exactly like 3e, it sounds like they are aware of the flaws of 3e multiclassing and adjusting the system to deal with that. And I think the Speciality MC dipping will continue. Just a thought, but if basic is like 1e D&D, and and standard is like 3e with elements of 4e like at wills and 2e like kits, then advanced could be more like 4e including class hybred rules. That's alot of options to pick your poison,from for multiclassing.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

This week's entire column is music to my ears. My favorite edition to play was 3e; my favorite edition to run was 4e. Targeting those levels of complexity for each side of the game seems just right to me. It's also good to hear that they see the core rules as having a third complexity dial: the one that governs the interface between the players and the game world.

I also love that they'll be curating the feats and class options more tightly, and providing story-based hooks for character creation. One of the things that turned my wife off about 4e was loading the character builder and being presented a list of hundreds upon hundreds of feats.

 

[Prickly]

I'm not really a fan of 3e multiclassing or 3e class building in general.

Big fan of 4e dming so thats cool.

 

[Stalker0]

I think they noted my general feeling:

We want a game that plays like 3e, and DMs like 4e.

Its a hard goal, but I will say that success in this area would truly make the new edition feel like a superior upgrade from the previous two.

 

[Bluenose]

In my experience, 1e/2e style multi-classing was RIDICULOUSLY unbalanced. The Fighter/Magic-User/Thief could basically do everything the Fighter, Magic-User, and Thief could do, and do it almost exactly as well. (Maybe they were one level behind.) The seeming counter-balance was that only nonhumans could multi-class, and they'd eventually encounter racial level limits.

(This also exposes one of the biggest logic bombs in 1e/2e. The long lived races advanced in all of their classes at once before hitting an artificial ceiling. The short lived humans could advance as long as they wanted in one class, then switch to another, etc. Clearly, that should have been swapped, except they wanted to model the fighter/mage elf of the basic game.)

3750 xp before you increase in level at all (to Thief 2). At which point every other class in the game is either level 2 or level 3 (Thief, Cleric, perhaps Bard?). 2/2/3 is at 7500xp, and a single class fighter is pretty close to 4th level then while a Thief is already 4th. You're paying for versatility with a noticeable reduction in power. And note that racial level limits also play into that lower power if the campaign goes to high levels.

 

[Greg K]

1. As a fan of 3e, my issues with 3e multi-classing
a. Dip into a class and get all of its armor and weapon proficiencies.
b. Dip into a class and get its good save bonus(es)
c. Dip into Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard without first knowing 0-level spells and automatically gain 1st level spells
d. Not needing a trainer as the default.

2. Not happy with Wardens being put under Barbarian

3. Other things:
a. I hope that they have a skill point module. As a DM and player, I despise the 4e skill mechanic and the last playtest skill dice module.
b. I hope that they include an option where Monster Lore skills are their own skills by category (Demon/Devil, Dragon, Far Realm, Fey, Spirit, Undead).

 

[odinfellhammer]

I do like what he is saying. If it can be done, then 5E might be a good game.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. As a fan of 3e, my issues with 3e multi-classing
a. Dip into a class and get all of its armor and weapon proficiencies.
b. Dip into a class and get its good save bonus(es)
c. Dip into Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard without first knowing 0-level spells and automatically gain 1st level spells
d. Not needing a trainer as the default.

There's a good sign that a. is already taken into account, just see the proficiency description line of each class, which says you get these only when it's your first class.

b. is also taken care of, since there is no ST progression at all in 5e.

c. won't probably be what you wish for, but it's not impossible that multiclassing rules will "spread" the first level to multiple levels

d. could be an optional module at best

a. I hope that they have a skill point module. As a DM and player, I despise the 4e skill mechanic and the last playtest skill dice module.

This could be in Advanced, but how feasible depends on the core skill mechanics. When skills were a flat bonus, it would have been super-easy to "split" them into single points i.e. replacing the 4 times +3 with 12 total points to spread as you wish. However, it's not obvious at all how to do that against the skill dice.

b. I hope that they include an option where Monster Lore skills are their own skills by category (Demon/Devil, Dragon, Far Realm, Fey, Spirit, Undead).

All they need to do, is clarify explicitly that the skill list is by no means exhaustive. Then those who want can make up their own (this way, you can break monster lore as you want instead of having to match a default) and those who are against the idea just don't make up additional skills.

With all the above, I think you can be actually quite optimistic