D&D 5E D&D Q&A Januarary 31

[KidSnide]

Multi-class dipping, as it was used in 3.x, got a bad name because the classes all gave an extra bump at 1st level to bring characters up to some level of minimum competence. This was balanced out by certain classes (i.e. spell casters) paying a heavy price if you didn't put all your levels into classes that gave +1 level as spell caster bonuses. But, if you avoided classes that depended on spellcasting level, you could build some very abusive combinations by putting together a large number of level 1 classes into a single character.

They say they've solved this problem by only giving the "level 1 bump" to characters who start out in that class. If you start as a level 1 fighter, you get all these proficiencies, fighter-only maneuvers like parry, and a stat bump to Str, Dex or Con. If you take level 1 fighter as a multiclass you get ... less than that.

If they get the balance right, it seems like they preserve the ability for PCs to reflect character growth through multi-classing. (E.g., "I have a level of cleric because of that adventure where I got ordained by the temple of Artemis.") They don't promise that it will be super-effective, but it will be possible to show the story aspect of class dipping without the volume of system breaking we saw in 3.x.

I think this makes a lot of sense for D&DN. Feats can be part of the solution, but if characters only get four feats to represent the specialty aspect of character customization, that can't be the only means to express dabbling in other classes.

-KS

 

[gyor]

Honestly they need to redo levels 11-20 anyways, there is no reasons to stop getting feat at such low level, allow characters to pick,a second specialty.

 

[gyor]

I also found the possiblity of classes with alike features working well together interesting. So I'm guess a multiclass Cleric/Wizard will have some way of intergrating thier spellcasting abilities. So if your level 5 cleric and level 6 wizard, you can use say upto 3rd level cleric spells and you can use level 4, 5, and 6th level wizard spells. Or maybe this character would add some wizard spells to thier cleric spell progression. Or even as simple as allowing a 5 cleric/5 wizard to use wisdom to cast wizard spells to aviod MAD.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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.

First off, you don't LOSE parry when you multiclass - it just stops getting better, like Channel Divinity or any other class-specific feature. (All your other maneuvers would continue to scale if you multi classed into something else with MDD, which is already more than you can say for multi class spell casters.)

And I agree that more powerful high-level abilities would do this, and they already stated that rogues and fighters will be getting more high-level stuff like monks and barbarians.

My bigger concern is that they still haven't suggested any way that multi class spell casters wouldn't end up with a ton of crappy low-level spells later on.

 

[Stalker0]

My bigger concern is that they still haven't suggested any way that multi class spell casters wouldn't end up with a ton of crappy low-level spells later on.

One big change in 5e that already helps Multiclass spellcasters are saving throws. In 3e, your saving throw depended on spell level, while in 5e it only depends on ability score.

So while a multiclasses 6th level spell is weaker than a pure casters 8th level spell, they can be made equally difficult to resist.

 

[Grimmjow]

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.

I think that will be cool. First class should be more important than what you multi-class into

Honestly they need to redo levels 11-20 anyways, there is no reasons to stop getting feat at such low level, allow characters to pick,a second specialty.

Agreed. 11-20 needs to be thrown out and done completely over. the levels are so boring even without not getting feats, the things that the classes get are so boring (i thought the barbarian was cool but the monk is got lame things higher up and the other classes don't really get anything)

 

[gyor]

It'll be interesting to see how Prestiage Classes fit into all this.

 

[gyor]

I think that will be cool. First class should be more important than what you multi-class intoAgreed. 11-20 needs to be thrown out and done completely over. the levels are so boring even without not getting feats, the things that the classes get are so boring (i thought the barbarian was cool but the monk is got lame things higher up and the other classes don't really get anything)

Yeah I know. Looking at classes I'm thinking looking cool on each and then level 11 hits and its like you enter a second completely lame class, that has only minium level of connection to the first. The only exceptions appear to be the Barbarian and to a much lessee extent the Cleric, which doesn't go lame till level12.

 

[Grimmjow]

Yeah I know. Looking at classes I'm thinking looking cool on each and then level 11 hits and its like you enter a second completely lame class, that has only minium level of connection to the first. The only exceptions appear to be the Barbarian and to a much lessee extent the Cleric, which doesn't go lame till level12.

lol that extra level isn't that great though XD

the barbarian does give me hope though. I'm hoping they did that to see if people liked the level 11-20 on the barbarian better then the other classes. now if only we could get some more feats.......

ON MUTLI-CLASSING!

I do remember reading somewhere (maybe a L&L article) that they weren't sure if a 19 fighter/1 wizard would work (cant see that it would) but a level 3 fighter/2 wizard should be a good character. Personally, this, and making your primary class better then what you get from multi-classing in it would be fine with me.

 

[FireLance]

I think I've mentioned it a few times already, but I think my ideal multiclassing system would be a feat-based system as a prerequisite for taking levels in a new class. In order to multiclass, you need to first take a feat that would give you some of the abilities of the new class, and you might also need to meet other prerequisites, e.g. training in a Knowledge skill for a wizard, or proficiency with heavy armor for a fighter. This also has the added feature of making it easier for a cleric of the Warbringer to multiclass into fighter, while a wizard would have to pay a steeper cost.