D&D 5E Multiclassing Broken Down

[Chris_Nightwing]

Over on another thread, 3E-style multiclassing is winning the poll, followed by a strong showing for classic multiclassing/4E hybrid classes (which are awfully similar in intent) and then 4E multiclass feats. I think this poll might indicate a division between how people see classes and levels on a more fundamental level, so I made a poll.

Designing a multiclass system comes with several important questions:

1. Should you have to decide your class mixture in advance (classic, 4E hybrid) or not (3E)?
2. If not 1, should your first class be special? (classic dual-classing, 3E to some extent, 4E feats) or not?
3. Should the divergence of your different classes be limited in some way (4E feats) or not (classic dual-classing, 3E)?

I think that there's a split between people who want to be able to mix-and-match classes as much as they like, deciding as they level-up, and people who think that you should have to commit right from the start to a particular concept. In my mind, this is actually an ideological choice about how important your class is. The mix-and-match approach treats levels like currency and, if anything, would function better with less distinct classes - where abilities might overlap considerably between classes and the tree-climbing required to get the best class abilities would be reduced (9th-level spells, I'm looking at you). The committed approach likes distinctive classes right from the start, and wants some abilities to be unachievable unless the class is fully committed to. This works better if every class has its best abilities at the top of tall trees, and with almost no overlap between classes.

 

[slobo777]

I don't see a split between all the options, so much as wanting to see choice for players. The more of it that the designers can get to work, and work together, the more fun we can have building characters mechanically for whatever reason (match or create a concept, exploring possibilities, optimising).

So I'd happily see more than one approach in D&D Next.

However, I guess D&D Next should pick one for the core rules, and add more later on.

If we have to choose one, I'd happily see a "special" first class, and commitment required (in terms of investing levels) to get an even split between abilities over time. That does leave players wanting an even split from the get go a little out on a limb - only a little, there is the option of starting at high enough level, 5th say - where this can be sorted out in a starting build.

I think that means I'm pretty aligned with what WotC claim to be doing. I really don't like the messiness of "specially-for-multi-classing" class progression tables that they will create, but I think they are a necessary evil to make the base classes for non-MC players simpler.

 

[Halivar]

There was no option for "all of the above" so I did not vote.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

There's no option for 'all of the above' because, I believe, it's impossible to design the system both ways - the extremes being levels as currency (where the first level isn't that special) vs. classes as unique.

 

[underfoot007ct]

There was no option for "all of the above" so I did not vote.

I didn't vote either, I don't really care which way Multi-class goes, If the system works. Hopefully makes some sence, is NOT front loaded. I was not really stratified with 4e, and not happy with 3e pick everything & anything.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Looks like the majority likes ad-lib multiclassing, and there's an even split between first class special and first class not special.

But... wouldn't a "first class not special" system be able to do both?

 

[slobo777]

Looks like the majority likes ad-lib multiclassing, and there's an even split between first class special and first class not special.

But... wouldn't a "first class not special" system be able to do both?

First class not special would need to weaken low levels of all classes, making first level starting point less standard/expected. If necessary to match feature list of current 1st level characters, you may need to start with e.g. 3 or 4 levels to build a character with enough class features to be "complete".

That makes building a ready-to-go character more complex, raising the bar against new players.

Or . . . just perhaps the designers could reduce power of class and level, loading more features into race, speciality and background (I live in hope, but expect not).

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

First class not special would need to weaken low levels of all classes, making first level starting point less standard/expected. If necessary to match feature list of current 1st level characters, you may need to start with e.g. 3 or 4 levels to build a character with enough class features to be "complete".

That makes building a ready-to-go character more complex, raising the bar against new players.

Or . . . just perhaps the designers could reduce power of class and level, loading more features into race, speciality and background (I live in hope, but expect not).

I don't think it has to result in less powerful 1st level characters, but it does have to tie less to your class, as you say. A clever hybrid system might give you three ability picks at first level, and you could take everything from one class if you wanted, or mix and match a bit, with each subsequent level giving you only one pick. This is a bit like starting at 3rd level though, I guess.

 

[slobo777]

I don't think it has to result in less powerful 1st level characters, but it does have to tie less to your class, as you say. A clever hybrid system might give you three ability picks at first level, and you could take everything from one class if you wanted, or mix and match a bit, with each subsequent level giving you only one pick. This is a bit like starting at 3rd level though, I guess.

Yes, and the same objection on basis of complexity.

However, I'm not objecting for myself, I like complex and flexible build systems. I'd get rid of classes entirely if I could.

I suppose you *could* have both if the added on multi-class system let you mix and match features in a level 1 character, with those rules kept clear of the basic system. Feature "picks" would need to be balanced out though (probably by bundling weaker things together, so you chose between either "Expertise Dice" or "+1 Str, + to hit" ), so I'm not sure if that would be true flexibility or worth the effort.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Yes, and the same objection on basis of complexity.

However, I'm not objecting for myself, I like complex and flexible build systems. I'd get rid of classes entirely if I could.

I suppose you *could* have both if the added on multi-class system let you mix and match features in a level 1 character, with those rules kept clear of the basic system. Feature "picks" would need to be balanced out though (probably by bundling weaker things together, so you chose between either "Expertise Dice" or "+1 Str, + to hit" ), so I'm not sure if that would be true flexibility or worth the effort.

I think you would have to take a step towards a classless system, without actually getting there. A key objective would be to reduce the depth of subsystems like spellcasting and expertise dice, and to try to bring them together wherever possible. That way, when you gain a level in a particular class, you will gain abilities related to what that class is good at, but they will mostly synergise with the abilities you have from other classes.

3.5 ended up with the awkward system it had because everything to do with physical fighting synergised across all classes (BAB, feats, proficiencies), but absolutely nothing did in spellcasting (cleric levels and wizard levels had no bearing on each other).