D&D 5E (2014) D&D Q&A Januarary 31

[gyor]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...sic_characters,_ease_of_dming__multi-classing

 

[Kobold Stew]

These are the right answers -- very encouraging.

1. This means the only difference between basic and standard characters is min/max optimization, which of course is also the difference between standard characters.

3. However cumbersome the result will be, making conscious choices about avoiding 1-level dips is important.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a little nervous about part of their answer to #3.

The "class abilities that advance only in a particular class" is what lead to "full caster progression" PrC's, and "back-fill" feats, and other ways of never emerging from your initial chosen class.

It's very contradictory to say "Multiclassing is wide open! But you will loose your best abilities if you even slide a little bit into some other class. So don't." If Parry is something I want for my character (regardless of if they're a Fighter or not), why should I have to be a Fighter to do it effectively?

I think specialties might be able to help with this, though. No reason a given specialty shouldn't be able to give you Fighter-equivalent Parry even if you're a ranger or a paladin or a sorcerer or whatever.

I think the other way to help with this is to ensure that classes have decent higher-level abilities that are different from lower-level abilities. A fighter that just gets MOAR DICE isn't going to give someone a reason to stay in it. A fighter that might end up giving, like four attacks, with immense damage bonuses, at higher levels, is more likely to be tempting to stay in for a while. That's part of what spells offer: 8th and 9th level spells are awesome enough that you don't want to give them up, except for something equally as awesome. High-level fighter or ranger or whatever abilities should be the same.

 

[KidSnide]

I'm a little nervous about part of their answer to #3.

The "class abilities that advance only in a particular class" is what lead to "full caster progression" PrC's, and "back-fill" feats, and other ways of never emerging from your initial chosen class.

It's very contradictory to say "Multiclassing is wide open! But you will loose your best abilities if you even slide a little bit into some other class. So don't."

I think this is a fair concern, but it's not what I got out of the answer to #3. I read the answer as saying "You only get your best abilities if you put several levels into a class", not "you will lose your best abilities if you put one or two levels into some other class."

In other words, a Fighter 5 / Barbarian 5 would have a decent parry ability, but a Fighter 1 / Barbarian 9 wouldn't.

-KS

 

[Klaus]

I'm a little nervous about part of their answer to #3.

The "class abilities that advance only in a particular class" is what lead to "full caster progression" PrC's, and "back-fill" feats, and other ways of never emerging from your initial chosen class.

It's very contradictory to say "Multiclassing is wide open! But you will loose your best abilities if you even slide a little bit into some other class. So don't." If Parry is something I want for my character (regardless of if they're a Fighter or not), why should I have to be a Fighter to do it effectively?

I think specialties might be able to help with this, though. No reason a given specialty shouldn't be able to give you Fighter-equivalent Parry even if you're a ranger or a paladin or a sorcerer or whatever.

I think the other way to help with this is to ensure that classes have decent higher-level abilities that are different from lower-level abilities. A fighter that just gets MOAR DICE isn't going to give someone a reason to stay in it. A fighter that might end up giving, like four attacks, with immense damage bonuses, at higher levels, is more likely to be tempting to stay in for a while. That's part of what spells offer: 8th and 9th level spells are awesome enough that you don't want to give them up, except for something equally as awesome. High-level fighter or ranger or whatever abilities should be the same.

I prefer Specialty-based multiclassing (aka the 4e feat-based MC) or flat-out Hybrids (as in 1e/2e and 4e) to the level-by-level multiclassing. Between Arcane Dabbler, Healing Initiate and Martial Training, you can almost see a glimpse of feat-based MC already (but Martial Training needs to give you one MDD, if you don't have one).

 

[MoonSong]

I prefer Specialty-based multiclassing (aka the 4e feat-based MC) or flat-out Hybrids (as in 1e/2e and 4e) to the level-by-level multiclassing. Between Arcane Dabbler, Healing Initiate and Martial Training, you can almost see a glimpse of feat-based MC already (but Martial Training needs to give you one MDD, if you don't have one).

I think it all comes about what do you want out of multiclass, specialty based multiclassing is enough for some, but not all of the purposses. I'm not agaisnt it, it is good to have, but it doesn't fully substitute, nor preclude other options (like classic simultaneous multiclassing and level based multiclassing) and I think it is very important to get all three, not a single one can cover all that people want or need out of multiclassing:

Multiclass as dabbling.- In other words get a single new trick that is uncommon for your class, something special. Feat based is king in this one, and level based does wonders for those who aren't picky, yet single level dipping has become infamous and is very maligned and frowned upon. Simultaneous MC gives way more than that.

Multiclass as broaddening of abilities.- Understood as "more than just a small trick", all three can work propperly at this rate, yet level based runs the risk of not scaling propperly

Multiclass as blending of classes.- Simultaneous MCing is the best one here, that is what it doeas at it's core, feat-based requires a big expenditure of resources and level based is very criticed as "needing patching" and gimping the character

Multiclass as character evolution.- "I got tired of studying books and rather learn to fight with a sword than keep going the same" Simultaneous MCing doesn't fit the bill, by it's very static and set nature, feat-based also falls short, it takes a lot of resources and in the end it the character is still firmly grounded on the class of origin, level-based on the other hand works best for this purpose. (I liked dual-classing a lot for this purpose, if it just hadn't such draconian requeriments)

In the end it remains to be seen if I like the end result of their new MC rules, I hope it isn't as cumbersome and eventually allow you to be a full member of your new class (otherwise it would be a giant failure).But we will need something along the hybrids lines too, not a single multiclass method will be enough to cover all people want out of it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The down side to specialty-based multiclassing is that then you can't also have a specialty. You couldn't be a healer/fighter/wizard or whatever. I think it's a useful way to represent some multiclasses, but it isn't going to be appropriate for everyone.

I think 4e's "3 kinds of Vampires" approach works well here. Give some specialties. Give some hybrid rules (which just really sounds like alternating levels). Give some level-by-level multiclassing. No reason to limit it to one way, and the more ways there are, the more ways you can pick up exactly the kind of multiclass abilities you want, without piling on the others.

Mostly the answer to #3 just made me worry that we might see a lot of kludges to make sure a fighter doesn't lose an effective parry for dipping some levels in barbarian or whatever. That's partially going to be determined by monster strength: will some monsters hit so hard that having a fully-pumped Parry (or whatever) is something that's essential, and that having a fair-to-middling Parry is something that's basically a waste of an ability slot? That way lies madness and kludges and "full caster progression"-style imbalances.

 

[Klaus]

I think 4e's "3 kinds of Vampires" approach works well here. Give some specialties. Give some hybrid rules (which just really sounds like alternating levels). Give some level-by-level multiclassing. No reason to limit it to one way, and the more ways there are, the more ways you can pick up exactly the kind of multiclass abilities you want, without piling on the others.

I agree with you here. I've long defended that there should be more than one way to build a character. As long as Specialty-based dabbling is still there, I'm content.

 

[Falling Icicle]

1. I'm glad basic characters and advanced ones will be compatible and on the same overall power level. They do make it sound like feats won't be optional, though. They make it sound like basic characters will just use specialties, while other characters can pick their feats a la carte. We've known that about specialties for a long time now, but I was always under the impression people could remove them entirely. I don't mind it, I prefer having feats in the game, but those that don't might find that upsetting.

3. It sounds to me like a Ftr5/Wiz5 will be different from a Wiz5/Ftr5. I'm not sure I like that. I'm just going to wait and see the multiclassing rules before making any judgments.

 

[Iosue]

1. I'm glad basic characters and advanced ones will be compatible and on the same overall power level. They do make it sound like feats won't be optional, though. They make it sound like basic characters will just use specialties, while other characters can pick their feats a la carte. We've known that about specialties for a long time now, but I was always under the impression people could remove them entirely. I don't mind it, I prefer having feats in the game, but those that don't might find that upsetting.

The basic game will not have specialties or feats. Each class will have a specialty built in as a class feature. At the standard level, you can choose a specialty, or create your own picking feats a la carte.