D&D 5E Multi-class support in 5E

Aldarc

Legend
Its not meaningless at all.
Now apply it to D&D. Your idea of "irreducible complexity" is far more vacuous of a term and subject to debate. Let's take standard PHB1 3e or Pathfinder classes, for example. Do you see any case where the classes are not "irreducibly complex"?

There is nothing in the game forcing you to multiclass- the archetypes remain solidly simulated. You want to play an archetypal barbarian, don't multiclass out of barbarian.
But do they? What makes an archetypal "barbarian" different from say a fighter with a barbarian theme package and rage as an optional combat feature/feat?

Besides, how many literary or mythological figures would be universally statted out as single-classed in D&D terms, anyway?
It depends on how many classes were available and how flexible character customization is in a given system. ;)

If I can't model PCs that interest me, 5Ed will not interest me.
Then you clearly hate D&D and you should just play some other system like HERO instead. ;) Joking.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BobTheNob

First Post
I thought multiclassing was at its best in 2e (and thats not saying much). It wasnt perfect, but it worked.

3e's idea was interesting, and when I first read it I almost fell out of my chair thinking how awesome it was. Then I played 3e, tried to multiclass and regretted trying. I now think 3e's was a great concept, but didnt work in practice.

Then 4e...what multiclassing? A feat that lets you swap a power...big deal. A multiclass paragon that let you pick power from another class and was strictly inferior to other paragons? Really? Hybrids as a last minute after thought which had trouble with Synergies and MAD for a large number of combinations? Eeep. IMHO 4e multiclassing was s singular disaster.

I really do want them to come up with something cool for multi-classing. I really, really do. It just means so much to me that after all these years they can find a way of modelling the guy that walks multiple paths and fits nicely into the game. Who knows, it might happen
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Now apply it to D&D. Your idea of "irreducible complexity" is far more vacuous of a term and subject to debate. Let's take standard PHB1 3e or Pathfinder classes, for example. Do you see any case where the classes are not "irreducibly complex"?
It's not vacuous at all.

A 1st level Ftr has things that simply cannot be gained via feats or other means short of multiclassing- besides the freebie feats, they get a bonus feat, a BAB higher and more accellerated in rate of increase than all but other warrior classes, larger HD. The Cleric gets Turn Undead & full divine casting. The wizard & Sorc have full arcane casting. The Rogue has the highest rate of accumulating skill points. Monks get special treatment for their unarmed attacks. Other classes have abilities that are likewise available by taking levels in those classes (some of which are similar to or identical to those in the PHB classes).

None of which are available any other way than via multiclassing. The class is thus the base, irreducible unit for gaining those abilities in D&D's system.

(Don't know PF well enough to comment.)

But do they? What makes an archetypal "barbarian" different from say a fighter with a barbarian theme package and rage as an optional combat feature/feat?

Just because there are two roads to a destination does not mean one is less good or beautiful- they're just different.

As I said before, I don't know jack about themes, and AFAIK, there is no Feat that grants rage.

If there is an ACF that grants rage, that still makes it a feature of a class.

And the fact that there may be more than one way in a game to make a "barbarian" doesn't mean the archetype in the Barbarian class is dead. It just means you can now make more than one kind of barbarian.

Then you clearly hate D&D and you should just play some other system like HERO instead. ;) Joking.
Taking your joke seriously for a second, this actually gets to part of what I'm talking about when I say that 4Ed doesn't feel like D&D to me, but rather, feels like a completely different FRPG.

Whenever I play a FRPG, I try to make my PCs fit within the game. Even though I'm a "concept first" PC designer, I don't design my PCs the same way for D&D as I do for Fantasy HERO, which is different from Earthdawn, which is different from Talisantha, which is different from Harn, which is different from GURPS, etc.

It's not that I have a strict set of guidelines that I refer to and say, "Nope, that's a Harn PC, I can't make her in D&D." It's a bit more subconscious than that...but the results are plain as the character sheets. The PCs I play in the various FRPGs generally have a distinctive feel, like they were made by different people.

And the 4Ed PCs just look...different...from everything that went before.
 

LordArchaon

Explorer
I'll try to state my opinion. It's difficult, because it's a "liquid" opinion, even if Multiclassing is one of my top priorities for the game (all my characters have been MCs more or less), and I usually have very clear ideas on game design...

I'm going to say 4e Hybrid is my favorite type of MC, especially when coupled with additional MC feats.
The good thing about 4e Hybrid, that I think could be maintained in 5e, is that you can choose at any level if you want to get your power from class A or class B. The bad thing is that many classes lost too many features and you could buy just one or two with Hybrid Talent, but that's fixable IMO.

I'm a bit worried about "shooting for 3e-style multiclassing", because even if they maintain 4e-style MC-like feats to get some minor features of other classes, if you make the true multiclassing system in the form of "take a level in X", there will always be the problem of having to loose something.
True, the math of saves and attack bonuses is fixable.
True, you should lose something when multiclassing.
But still, I can't see 3e-style multiclassing being as flexible as 4e-style hybridizing where at any given level you go "Ok, should I get a Fighter exploit or a Sorcerer spell?"... If they manage to solve this problem, with a solution that I'd call "Level Equivalence" or something, then I'm ok with 3e-style. But then again, if they do solve it, will they be able to retain the difference between, say, a Fighter 4th/Sorcerer 7th and a Sorcerer 4th/Fighter 7th? My guess is that the level should just put a cap on the number of different features and available ones, not on the power of each of them. This, for a spellcaster, would mean that your caster level or equivalent mechanic would still be based on your level, and damage of your spells as well. It could also mean that maximum spell level could be also based on level. What you'd loose is number of spell slots, spells known, special features.

Practical example of my ideal 5e multiclassing:

Fighter
1 Basic Maneuvers, Challenge, Favored Weapon
2 Battle Stances
3 Fighter Tactics (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader)
4 Weapon Specialization, New Maneuver
Features = approx. 2x class level

Sorcerer (thread about my ideal 5e sorcerer)
1 First Spell-seed, Basic Forms, Arcane Fundamentals
2 Elemental Halo
3 Arcane Surge
4 Second Spell-seed, New Form
Features = approx. 2x class level

Fighter 3 / Sorcerer 1:you get 2 features from either Sorcerer or Fighter, up to level 4.
Choosing Weapon Specialization and Elemental Halo gives same power in melee as Fighter 4 plus additional synergistic feature; choosing First spell-seed and Basic Forms gives nearly full-fledged Sorcerer casting, but a Sorcerer of the same level would have two spell-seeds (basic elements to form spells), and more forms, and the encounter Arcane Surge to cast powerful spells. And you'd loose Weapon Specialization.
-> You always loose something, but you can choose what to loose and what to gain, and the total character level would be the cap.

Now example with Wizard, which is more problematic since it has spell-slots. (There would still be classes that are more or less difficult to multiclass, I guess. Wizard could be a difficult one)

Wizard
1 Cantrips, Basic Spell, Level 1 Spells (2)
2 Level 1 Spells (3), Ritual Casting
3 Level 2 Spells (3/1)
4 Second Basic Spell, Level 2 Spells (4/2)

Now, each slot should be considered a different feature, given the power... or not? Let's see what happens following the previous model: we should get approximately 8 features. But we end up having 10 if we count each slot as different. Let's see the different results with the previous example:

Fighter 3/Wizard 1: you get 2 features from either Fighter or Wizard, up to level 4.
Single Slots are features -> Level 2 Spells (2) [these are two features, maximum level]
Multiple Slots from one level are single features -> Level 2 Spells (0/1), Level 2 Spells (1/2)

So I guess we should count single slots as class features, or you'd end up getting spell slots pretty fast multiclassing as Wizard.
An Ideal Fighter 3/Wizard 1 could get a single Level 2 slot and a Basic Spell (at-will).

Now another problem: class proficiencies. I'd say a single proficiency per level taken into second or third class. Only your first class gets all the proficiencies. What does this mean? That the Fighter 3/Wizard 1 would only learn how to use a Wand, not an Orb, if they're different implements. Or could need to get the "Spellbook proficiency" first, just to be able to use his spell slots. On the other hand, a Wizard 3/Fighter 1 looking for some better armor, would only get Leather armor at first, and would get Chain (or Hide) only when Wizard 3/Fighter 2. Note that he/she would likely advance spell slots of his/her highest level only. So the choice wouldn't limit actual power, but a lack of 1st level spell slots could limit versatility and durability, if wanting to take Fighter features at all (could always want Fighter levels just for HPs and proficiencies...)

EDIT: Another possibility to balance out and decide what features you can take by multiclassing would be giving some things requirements. If we go "Weapon Specialization I" and "Weapon Specialization II", it would mean that to get WS II you'd need WS I first. You could still get both with just one level of Fighter if your total level is right, but you'd have to invest everything on it, you couldn't just jump to II simply because your total level allows it. Same goes for spell slots but always counting just 1 of them at a time. We have "Spells I (3 slots)" and "Spells II (1 slot)" and to take that level 2 slot we'd need to take a level 1 slot too, making the choice a bit more difficult. The simple act of adding numbers to a class feature would imply that to take "number II" you'd need "number I" first. If wanting to be creative, we'd simply add multiclassing requirements under each class feature, and state that the Sorcerer's Arcane Surge needs a Spell-seed and Basic Forms, while the Elemental Halo would require just a Spell-seed. Things as Ritual Casting, Basic Spell or Arcane Fundamentals would be poach-able without requirements...

EDIT 2: To make things really granular and controlled with this multiclassing system, we could also state that you can always only have as many class features in a given class as (class level in that class x 2). You could always retrain in order to keep your power level in row with your character level. A Fighter 6/Wizard 1 could still have access to the spell slot level of a Wizard 7, but it would be only one slot, with the other slot being of the inferior level. The character would have attained this by retraining first level slot into second level and second level into third level and so on. You'd still lack the ability to cast many spells. You'd get that only by advancing Wizard more.
 
Last edited:

AlioTheFool

First Post
Problematic is an understatement. IMHO, 3e multiclassing devalued classes, turning them into packages you dipped into for min-maxing abilities instead of actual class archetypes.

This is my biggest issue with the anti-multiclassing argument. Not everyone likes playing archetypes. Some people want to create their own stories, rather than trying to replicate Drizz't, Raistlin, Gandalf, or whoever.

Personally, I never play archetypes. I'm no fan of "typical" wizards. My bards don't sing, they're more jester-like. My fighters are deep thinkers, my rogues don't steal.

There is room in the game for both archetypes and for those who reject them. I wrote a blog post last week about this. Basically, you make classes so that specific features are only available if you continue to grow in that specific class. If you multiclass, you can acquire varied features, but not "advanced" ones. I believe this is the direction WotC is going to take. I wasn't at DDXP, so I can't say for sure, but this is my gut feeling.

4e turned classes into straightjackets, mandating that if you chose to be a fighter, you would advance as a fighter every level you gained, forever. Not that I don't see your point, but the 3e mentality is a better place to start, even if it does need improvement.

Agreed.

Personally, I found 3.5Ed's version of multiclassing to be the best incarnation of the overall mechanic in D&D. Still my fave.

I found 4Ed's Feat-based system quite the straightjacket as the sole form of multiclassing. As one option among others, though, I thought it was a good idea. Still, though, I see room for improvement. The overall form of the multiclassing feats should be standardized: gaining a skill and an AW power as an E power- both chosen by the player, rather than the designers- seems a pretty solid choice for a dabbler. In addition, because of my personal penchant for playing Jacks of all Trades ('cause I am one), I found the "single MC feat" restriction for all but the Bard to be overly restrictive as well. Let those who want to dabble do so freely- consider what they're giving up in the context of the game.

I found Hybrids to be decent, a close second ton3.5Ed's take. I didn't necessarily care for which particular class abilities they chose for the classes' Hybrid forms, though.

I agree with the majority of this post. I'm pretty anti-4E style. I despised Hybrids. I agree that multiclassing shouldn't make you "better" than everyone else, but in order to do that, 4E makes you feel like you're "worse" than everyone else, which isn't good either.

I am confident the team will make multiclassing in D&DNext balanced enough that whether you multiclass or not, you feel like your character is worth playing in the group.

I don't like system mastery and I didn't like 3E multiclassing; and for me it wasn't just about math. With 3E-style multiclassing, your PCs end up usually being either "gimped" or monsters with horribly broken combos (in my 3E/PF games I've even denied multiclassing).

Since themes are already strongly tied to your background, IMO Pathfinder archetypes or 4E hybrid PCs might be the best way to do it (although I wouldn't mind 4E-style feat-based multiclassing, either). Return to playing Wiz 4/Rog 4/Fgh 4 in a group of 12th level PCs? No thanks...

I wouldn't mind seeing a system that allowed themes to be layered upon your character to round it out. It could be done very well, and I touched on that myself, though very briefly. Themes were one of my favorite additions to 4E, as they allowed a better opportunity to "multiclass" (though that wasn't their intended purpose) than feat-based or hybrid multiclassing. Their one downfall was "you can take one" which was a continuation of the disappointment of hybrids and feat-based style.
 

Aldarc

Legend
This is my biggest issue with the anti-multiclassing argument. Not everyone likes playing archetypes. Some people want to create their own stories, rather than trying to replicate Drizz't, Raistlin, Gandalf, or whoever.
I'm not against multiclassing; I'm against 3e-style multiclassing that all too easily encouraged class-dipping that provided large benefits with little downsides, thereby causing what I felt was class dilution. If you just want to create a free-form character with little regard for class, there are better systems out there for that. ;)
 


Gryph

First Post
Nope- he got some intensive training at one point in his life, and mastered the basics. His BAB still won't increase like a dedicated warrior, though.

The basics of many things can be learned and retained for a lifetime. I know enough of a few languages to keep myself fed, sheltered, and ask for help- but mastery takes a while. (There are only 2 languages I know well enough to read a novel.)

Even though I only played organized football for 1 season in HS, decades later, I still know how to properly don the pads- which vary by position- do a form tackle, and a few other tricks. But even if I were currently in shape, my skills would pale in comparison to someone who played 4 years in HS or anything more than that.

This is why I prefer 1e/2e or 4e's Hybrid classes. If I am trying to model that kind of early, lifetime training I want it reflected in my character from level 1. If I have to dip into multiple classes while levelling just to vaguely arrive at my initial character concept, it feels like a frustrating kludge.

When 3e multi-classing worked for me was when, for in story reasons, a character changed his focus and switched classes. Much like the old 1e dual classing rules. Five levels of Fighter followed by levels of Cleric was an ejoyable part of 3e, for me. Fighter2/Rogue4/Wizard3/Prc4 gives me the same kind of reaction that Aldarc has posted in this thread.


As an aside, I totally agree about feat based mutliclassing, too restrictive and too expensive for the one concept it covered reasonably well (representing lifetime training).
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
This is why I prefer 1e/2e or 4e's Hybrid classes. If I am trying to model that kind of early, lifetime training I want it reflected in my character from level 1. If I have to dip into multiple classes while levelling just to vaguely arrive at my initial character concept, it feels like a frustrating kludge.

OTOH, like it though I do, i have to say where Hybridizing fails utterly is one place I spend a lot of time: PCs who are not dabblers or 50/50 guys, but (non-Bardic) Jacks of all trades.

Which is why I like it...but not as much as 3.5Ed's rules.
 

AlioTheFool

First Post
I'm not against multiclassing; I'm against 3e-style multiclassing that all too easily encouraged class-dipping that provided large benefits with little downsides, thereby causing what I felt was class dilution. If you just want to create a free-form character with little regard for class, there are better systems out there for that. ;)

It's not about free-form classes. I understand your concern, but I firmly believe that with proper planning and effort, the team has design space to make 3E-style multiclassing work. Obviously it couldn't actually be 3E-style, but that idea of picking and choosing pieces to make your whole character.

I compiled and (I hope) polished my ideas for a good Next multiclassing, leaving it 3e-styled like the devs want... It's getting good feedback on twitter, hope you can comment too! :)
Blog at Wizards Community: "My Ideal Next Multiclassing"

Great post! I like that system quite a bit. It's along my own lines of thinking, but you put more detail into the specifics. Well done.

OTOH, like it though I do, i have to say where Hybridizing fails utterly is one place I spend a lot of time: PCs who are not dabblers or 50/50 guys, but (non-Bardic) Jacks of all trades.

Which is why I like it...but not as much as 3.5Ed's rules.

I'm big on playing bards, but under 4E, the need to burn feats just to begin to feel like you were a Jack-of-all-Trades was crippling. Playing a straight-up bard gave no feeling of varied ability.

I don't know how close they truly are in play, but my favorite 3.x derivative of multiclassing was that found in Neverwinter Nights (the video game). It was a lot along lines of the system LordArchaon posted, where you need to take multiple levels of a class to gain access to various features of the class.
 

Remove ads

Top