D&D 5E Ummm... Multiclass Rules?

[Atomo]

I think some issues are adressed to avoid overcombed multiclassing now. First of all, with apprentice levels, it is less problematic to take just one level of one class and gain many benefits. The first level now gives some benefits, but not so many as 3rd edition. Second, with ability improvement/feats tied to class and not global level, many people will want stay in one class for at least four levels. Saves do not stack anymore between classes, once they are tied to abilities. The only real issue I perceive is a fast attack bonus progress with multiclassing, assuming we just add the bonus from each class together.

 

[YRUSirius]

Are there any rules hindrances that would prevent some 3E style multiclassing with the current playtest rules right now? I mean, do we really need any specific rules to multiclass that weren't in 3E? I think we could already already mix the classes if you gain a new level with the current rules. Or am I missing something?

-YRUSirius

 

[Kobold Stew]

The biggest problem with 3rd-edition multiclassing (in my view) was frontloaded classes, leading to ugly 1-level dips. It just rubbed me the wrong way.

Looking through the current packet, there are not a lot of especially appealing options for a one-level dip -- that's great news, I think, and helps break.

A 1-level dip in ranger or rogue is probably worth it for almost anybody to get the expertise die, and a 1-level dip in a spellcaster class to get cantrips (rather than use the Arcane/Divine initiate feat), but I do see the so-called Apprentice levels as being a great means to help with this sort of multiclassing.

For Stacking attack bonuses: they will need some rule limiting attack bonus, so that you can't end up with more than you'd have if you had pursued any of the classes straight through. The wording might be convoluted, but I feel something like that will be necessary.

 

[Li Shenron]

The only real issue I perceive is a fast attack bonus progress with multiclassing, assuming we just add the bonus from each class together.

Are there any rules hindrances that would prevent some 3E style multiclassing with the current playtest rules right now? I mean, do we really need any specific rules to multiclass that weren't in 3E?

For Stacking attack bonuses: they will need some rule limiting attack bonus, so that you can't end up with more than you'd have if you had pursued any of the classes straight through. The wording might be convoluted, but I feel something like that will be necessary.

IIRC Mearls tweeted about possibly having the same attack bonus progression to all classes.

In the current packet, each class has its own but IIUC "attack bonus" and "spellcasting bonus" are the same, meaning that spellcasters use the spellcasting bonus also for attacking at least with spells (please someone check if it applies also to attacking with weapons).

This is a major change, but fighter-types can still receive other attack bonuses or anyway huge improvements to using weapons, and furthermore attack/spellcasting bonus doesn't apply to something you're not proficient with, therefore a Wizard might have a +5 bonus with staves but she ain't going to swing a sword unless she becomes proficient to swords (which means, she's a Gish-type of Wizard).

Unifying all attack/spellcasting bonuses into a single progression based on total character level will solve this multiclassing problem.

What remains to be seen is how multiclass spellcasters compare to single-class spellcasters. This was the other big problem in 3e.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In the current packet, each class has its own but IIUC "attack bonus" and "spellcasting bonus" are the same, meaning that spellcasters use the spellcasting bonus also for attacking at least with spells (please someone check if it applies also to attacking with weapons).

Spellcasting bonus affects a spell's save DC, not the roll to attack.

All classes except Mage have an attack bonus. Which would be alright, except....

...therefore a Wizard might have a +5 bonus with staves but she ain't going to swing a sword unless she becomes proficient to swords (which means, she's a Gish-type of Wizard).

Unless she's an elf (longsword) or a dwarf (battle-axe, and not also the armor proficiencies). I would want to remove all racial weapon proficiencies in this case.

Unifying all attack/spellcasting bonuses into a single progression based on total character level will solve this multiclassing problem.

or mean that all Elf/Dwarf Wizards are Gish already.

 

[1of3]

What remains to be seen is how multiclass spellcasters compare to single-class spellcasters. This was the other big problem in 3e.

The problems in 3.x can be summarized as Fighters Multiclass Good, Casters Multiclass Bad.

To address the latter, it might help to consider all spell slots the same. So a caster with more than one casting class, can use their slots all their spells. That way casters multiclass well with other casters at least. It's also easier to handle.

 

[Li Shenron]

Spellcasting bonus affects a spell's save DC, not the roll to attack.

Yes, it still works like that... So I must have read this idea (of unifying the meaning of attack bonus and spellcasting bonus into one) in some "in the works" article or twitter/forum discussion.

If that happens, and if they also give one only level-based progression of such bonus to all classes, then there will be no multiclassing problem related to attacks and spells DC.

 

[Li Shenron]

To address the latter, it might help to consider all spell slots the same. So a caster with more than one casting class, can use their slots all their spells. That way casters multiclass well with other casters at least. It's also easier to handle.

At least it's one idea... It would end up so that a Cleric/Wizard will have lots of low level spells and no high level spells (like in 3e) but at least some flexibility in slot usage. I'm not sure if really "solves" the problem.

Furthermore, it has no effect on Fighter/Wizard characters, i.e. when the other class is not a spellcaster.

Overall I am not sure I need all these problems solved, because in our games we always tended to have single-class PCs rather than multiclass, and in that case it was more level-dipping than 50-50 (which is the worst for spellcasters). I'm just used to think that a lot of other gaming groups had these sort of problems with Martial/Spellcaster and Spellcaster/Spellcaster combos, but I can only speak indirectly. In those cases, the main complaint was that lagging more than 1-2 spell levels behind a single-class caster rendered the PC too weak.

 

[Starfox]

1E multiclassing FTW!

Seriously, 1E and 2E are the only editions in which multiclassing really worked.

 

[billd91]

1E multiclassing FTW!

Seriously, 1E and 2E are the only editions in which multiclassing really worked.

There are a lot of people who would take issue with that assessment. I found 3e multiclassing to be generally better with the exception of dealing with spellcasting. In 1e/2e, multiclassing as a spellcaster was usually too good with PCs gaining most of the benefits of being a fighter and a wizard only 1 level behind (in both) compared to his single-class companions, while in 3e multiclassing with a spellcaster was generally too weak.