D&D 5E Multiclassing--Which and Why?

[GX.Sigma]

Since it's the new hot topic, I felt like a little poll was called for.

In a general theoretical sense (not necessarily the specific implementation), what is your favorite style of multiclassing and why? Do you have any dealbreakers? Just curious. Make sure you post why that is your answer.


Even though I didn't play during the era of 3e, I have to say 3e-style multiclassing most appeals to me. It is the only system that lets you choose how deep you want to go--in all other systems, a fighter/mage is just a fighter/mage, and that's the end of it. In 3e-style, you can be mostly fighter with a little bit of mage, or mostly ranger with a bunch of fighter and one cleric because of that incident in the demonweb pits. It allows your character to be more than a class; it allows the character's class makeup to be an expression of the character, rather than the other way around.

Of course, the problem was that multiclassing was a system-mastery nightmare, but assuming they can balance it, I'm sold. (And it won't take much to balance the other forms of multiclassing, so I'm glad they're trying this one first.)

 

[Yora]

The 3rd edition system allows to branch out later when developments since campaign start make it appropriate. Also, it allows to set the ratio of how much one focuses on each class to anything one could want.

 

[Raith5]

For me, 3rd was the best in theory but 4th ed hybrids have been (by far) the best in practice to be able to create reasonably useful PC.

I can see why they are using 3rd style as starting point. But I hope they are able to replicate 3rd able to branch out as Yora says but avoid the class dipping zaniness and wonky implications for spellcasting that came from 3rd ed MCing.

 

[Minigiant]

3rd Multiclassing. Feels the most organic...

But only with my favorite multiclassing houserule.

"Your levels in a class count as ⅓ level of your other classes for the purposes of class features or ½ to your a favored class."

So an elf Fighter3/Rogue3/Wizard3 counts as a 5th level fighter, 5th level rogue, and 6th level wizard.

 

[Zelkon]

3.x style MCing is really fun, but in practice turns out to be a letdown unless you're doing a build like Soradin (sorcerer paladin). If they made it that you get an equivalent to gaining a new level in your own class, I'd be great. Take 4e for example. What if a fighter 22/cleric 1 didn't gain the abilities of a level 1 cleric but gave fighters access to some actually useful healing for that level and/or a power of maybe a bit lower strength? I liked the 4e hybrid system because you got basically a whole new class, not just a mish-mash, but that can be solved.

 

[GX.Sigma]

3rd Multiclassing. Feels the most organic...

But only with my favorite multiclassing houserule.

"Your levels in a class count as ⅓ level of your other classes for the purposes of class features or ½ to your a favored class."

So an elf Fighter3/Rogue3/Wizard3 counts as a 5th level fighter, 5th level rogue, and 6th level wizard.

Interesting. "Counts as," for the purposes of what? All class features?

 

[slobo777]

For me, 3rd was the best in theory but 4th ed hybrids have been (by far) the best in practice to be able to create reasonably useful PC.

I've tried hard to use 4E hybrids, as I like the idea, but generally I've been disappointed. They seem to be very hit or miss what works together. IMO you can drive it by looking for mechanical synergies, but not by simply picking what might be a cool combination. It's one of the few areas in 4E where creating a character balanced with his or her team-mates depends heavily on the one starting choices of what and how you combine, and where there are many "trap" options that look good initially, but don't really turn out well.

For instance, you need to align the prime stats (or at least have cross-over secondary/secondary), which in 4E are often quite arbitrarily assigned to the 1 of 6 stats that "feels right" for the class solo. It means that many hybrid options that would IMO be quite cool to play suffer from being at a -2 or thereabouts effective penalty to all attacks and damage, just for being a hybrid. And that's before subtracting away most of the class features. This could probably be rescued with some kind of house rule that adds something back for hybrids where primary and/or secondary stats don't line up.

So bearing that in mind, and sometimes wanting more choice than just two classes, overall I picked 3E's approach. Provided it can be better balanced:

1) Spellcasters should not be heavily penalised for picking up levels in other classes. Especially other spell-casting classes.

2) "Dipping" into a class should not get you all of that classes level 1 features. I understand that this is something the designers have already written about and seems covered.

3) However, "dipping" a class should not get you useless level 1 features at level 5 either. You should get benefits at a power level roughly equal to staying within a single class, just slightly reduced to offset the extra flexibility you have gained by multi-classing.

 

[Minigiant]

Interesting. "Counts as," for the purposes of what? All class features?

Most class features. But you have to get the get the class feature from actually taking the class to that level.

So that elf would have the caster levels, familiar, and slots of a 6th level wizard but not get the free spells or feats a wizard gets at level 5.

 

[slobo777]

Most class features. But you have to get the get the class feature from actually taking the class to that level.

So that elf would have the caster levels, familiar, and slots of a 6th level wizard but not get the free spells or feats a wizard gets at level 5.

By the looks of it, I think the patch works nicely for casters (plus it is needed and welcome addition to help MC casters), but will depend critically on what you get from the features list for non-casters.

Some non-casters only get nice stuff from specific features in their progression table, or through stuff you couldn't reasonably let them have in the houserule. E.g. fighters progress mainly through BAB increases and feats. Being a "level X" fighter for most other purposes is meaningless.

In other words, the house rule will make it very worthwhile for a level 8 fighter to dip a level of Cleric (access to many level 1-2 from cleric list, at the cost of +1 BAB, or even levels 1-3 if cleric is favoured class), but absolutely not the other way around (a bonus feat and some armour/weapon proficiencies, at the cost of not getting access to level 5 spells (= no Raise Dead!), and no difference whether or not fighter is favoured class)

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

3E multiclassing is my favourite in principle. In many ways it promised a less class-focused system, where you could just take the classic four, mix and match levels, and you'd have a character that filled the archetype in your head. Prestige classes offered something similar.

Mechanically it is terrible though. Fixable, yes, but this requires a paradigm shift in how spellcasting behaves. Between 2E and 3E almost everything relating to non-spellcasters became open and available to every class - multiple attacks, proficiency with weapons and armour, skills - and yet magic remained the domain of only certain classes, and these classes had to remain focused. If magic could be opened up the way these other aspects were, this system can work.