D&D 5E Multiclass in 5E

[MoonSong]

I guess it all comes to how you see multiclassing, multiclassing as dabbling, multiclassing as a turning point or mullticlassing as broadening

AD&D Multiclass
-Dabbling is impossible
-Pretty much the posterchild for Broadening
-Not good at all as a turning point

Dualclass
-You can "dabble" by starting on a class ans quickly changing classes
-Difficult for broadening of your abiliites, but there is a sweet spot
-Excellent as a turning point, but there is no looking back

3.X
-You can dabble at any point unless your primary class had a restriction
-Easy to broadden your abilities, but they get too diluted at times, specially for spellcasters
-Good as a turning point, but you can also look back.

4e Feat multiclassing
- Very good for dabbling.
- Not too good for broadenning your abilities, but some good feat chains allow you the equivalent of extra encounters and dailies.
- Extremely taxing as a turning point, it would consume five feats on average and your paragon path, not to mention carefull planning and is a long process. Even then your starting class keeps advancing regardless of your wishes and you never get to be a full member of the new class and you can only do it once

4e Hybrid
- Not good for simple dabbling, however humans could emulate it
- Not as much as gainning breadth, but you get some flexibility
- Since it is done at character creation, there is no place for multiclassing as a turning point, however psionic-non-psionic human/half elf hybrids can accomplish a better result by mixing with feat multiclassing, being able to get as much as three encounter powers from the second class (1 from paragon multiclass, 1 swap from psionic class and 1 swap from the non-psionic) still takes a lot of time and consumes lots of resources and can only be done once.

 

[Raith5]

How does PF handle multiclassed spellcasters? Or, to be more specific, how is it different from how 3.5 handles multiclassed spellcasters?

-KS

I dont play PF but I think a multiclassed casters get the spells of their caster level plus half of their non caster level. They still have DCs of their caster level. So a FTR/WIZ 8/4 would have the spells of 6th level wizard (rather than 4th in 3.5). I think this softens MC for casters a bit. But I may be mistaken.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If by "best by far" you meant horribly broken and utterly anathema to the way I want to play and by "tweaking" you meant should be doused in kerosene and set on fire then I must say I have to agree with you



I know that a lot of folks love the 3e mutliclassing system but I hate it with a passion

Your thoughts on 3e multiclassing are far more tender than my own regarding 1e/2e multiclassing and dual classing.

I would also remind you that there is a 3e "module" called gestalt which has most of the advantages and fewer of the downsides of the 1e/2e style.

I would not say I love the 3e multiclass system, but it was a workable framework that was somewhat successful and could easily be improved. Admittedly, the multi-class themed feats and PrCs are an implicit admission that they did not work as well as one might hope. If PCs had a "caster level" for every class equal to the character level (instead of the "class level"), the majority of the problems go away. Then it is mostly small tweaks to figure out which class abilities should be based on "caster level" rather than "class level".

IMO and IME 1e/2e multiclassing rules were hopeless. The single-class and multi-class characters exist on very differently shaped power vs. xp curves. The shaped of those curves varied in detail by both race and class. And the DM was instructed to ignore the problem and hope that by playing long enough the problem would fix itself. Unfortunately the promise of "fix itself" was a bald lie -- the problems did not go away, they just changed into different awkward problems. This is just a tour-de-force of what a game designer should never ever do (but I do not expect Gary to have realized as much at the time, obviously).

All editions potentially had serious power balance issues between the single-class and multi-class characters.

 

[Mika]

How does PF handle multiclassed spellcasters? Or, to be more specific, how is it different from how 3.5 handles multiclassed spellcasters?

-KS

Pathfinder is unchanged from 3.5 in this regard. The only change was rewriting the favored class mechanics.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I think how they are doing Backgrounds and Specialties is the way to go. Even now it's possible to create a Fighter and have a couple of Spells at first level... never possible before. This is awesome potential.

One thing they could do with the Specialties and Feats (please rename Feats, please rename Feats)... is that IF a person during character creation picks a specific Specialty and never alters the Feat progression in it then those Feats provide a bigger benefit, or an additional benefit that can mimic other Classes and their Special Abilities.

This way they wouldn't really need actual MC rules.

Another take is there could be a special Class Ability available to choose if a person takes a particular Background/Specialty combination. an example could be someone taking the Knight BG and Acolyte SP and this could provide a Cleric or Paladin Class Ability...and if you are a Paladin or Cleric, this combination improves one of your level 1 Class abilities, like giving an extra use of Channel Divinity for the Cleric.

 

[Danzauker]

IMHO the ONLY true "multiclassing" system in D&D history is 3.x, no matter how many broken things you have to fix.

All other systems, 1E/2E in particular, are NOT multiclasses. They are variations of hybrid classes (retraining and the possibility to dabble more or less spending feats in 4E gave a little more flexibility, but at a cost).

They could just call a fighter/mage in 1E "spellblade" or whatever, and print out the combat, saving throw and spell tables already calculated for you and that's all. Your path is fixed from level 1.

If I can not choose at any point in my character advancement, based on his development and campaign history whether he wants to become a paladin, or starts studyng magic, then it's not a multiclass system.

 

[lutecius]

3e, by far.

sure, it could use a few tweaks, like a caster level for a better synergy between spellcasting classes or giving fewer goodies at 1st level to discourage cherrypicking, prestige classes were a mess, too... but in my experience it was still more balanced than 1e/2e multiclassing and made more sense than 4e's power swapping or off-limit class features. I simply like the flexibility.
they still could create special hybrid classes for those who really want to progress exactly at the same rate in each domain.

 

[Halivar]

IMHO the ONLY true "multiclassing" system in D&D history is 3.x, no matter how many broken things you have to fix.

All other systems, 1E/2E in particular, are NOT multiclasses. They are variations of hybrid classes (retraining and the possibility to dabble more or less spending feats in 4E gave a little more flexibility, but at a cost).

Errr... huh? You have multiple classes. You're multi-classed.

 

[Halivar]

Ah, and I just remembered that for the last 3 years of 3.5, we always played with gestalt rules. I think it's the closest to 1E multi-classing. I think 5E would be more conducive to reintroducing that rule than 4E was (where it was quite impossible).

 

[nightwalker450]

I think dabbling is the best type of multi-classing, not the 3e way. Because level 1 isn't actually 0 exp, it's dedicating a good portion of your life to be considered that class (instead of a commoner). The fighter shouldn't just suddenly learn to do magic after clearing out a cave of kobolds. The wizard had to do years of study, and practice to be able to cast his first spells.

Maybe it'd be enough just to say you can have one additional class for each "Skill Training" feat you take, it would make Skill Training nicer, and help explain how you're learning to be another class.

So level 1 Fighter, Skill Training Streetwise.. Level 2 Can take a level of rogue.. Level 3 can take either Fighter or Rogue, and Skill Training Forbidden Lore... Level 4 can take a level of Wizard... Level 5 Fighter, Rogue or Wizard... etc...

Basically it comes down to I think there should be more gradual multi-classing than just switching at level-up. And the flat math should take care of the spell caster level problems of before, unless the majority of spells have max hp requirements, but I see that not as a problem, it just proves that only people dedicated to magic would be ready for them, not someone who spent most of his life swinging a sword and recently decided that books weren't so bad.

Either way, if its going to be even close to 3e style, they need to start play testing it real soon. Because once that door is opened all the classes will be looked at from a completely different angle, and will probably be gutted and rebuilt.