D&D 5E New legends and lore.....multiclassing sneak peak

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I too am surprised at this claim. I can see them being happy with Halflings, Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes as they are, but not Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs.

After the last playtest packet, we're almost done with the classes, races, and other core elements of the game.

Well, except that I keep seeing people claim that they are claiming that they are done, when, instead, Mearls claimed no such thing. Almost Done =/= Done.

 

[Li Shenron]

I believe that is what is intended.

I don't think this is possible... it would make them work just like 3e multiclassed casters in terms of daily slots, and with even a smaller number of spells prepared than in 3e (except that of course choosing which to cast from the list of prepared ones is a realtime decision).

The remark that Mearls add later about exploiting the scaling of 5e spells to fill higher level slots implies that 5e multiclass casters will have slots of level higher than each separate class have known spells for.

 

[Warbringer]

I don't think this is possible... it would make them work just like 3e multiclassed casters in terms of daily slots, and with even a smaller number of spells prepared than in 3e (except that of course choosing which to cast from the list of prepared ones is a realtime decision).

The remark that Mearls add later about exploiting the scaling of 5e spells to fill higher level slots implies that 5e multiclass casters will have slots of level higher than each separate class have known spells for.

This is my take also; you prepare at the individual caster class level, you cast at a combined caster level... So cleric/Mage 3/3, prepare spells as if 3rd Mage, 3rd cleric, but with casting slots of 6th level.

At high levels I just don't think this will be effective unless there are scaling down rules for some higher level spells as well as scaling up for lower level....

 

[Warbringer]

Well, except that I keep seeing people claim that they are claiming that they are done, when, instead, Mearls claimed no such thing. Almost Done =/= Done.

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

... Only MOSTLY done

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

... Only MOSTLY done

Must spread XP. Not for being funny, but instead for reminding me that I am officially NOT a geek because I've only seen Princess Bride once.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Instead of looking at the mechanics of multiclassing, 5E's designers should take a step back and look instead at the intent of the player.

Why do players want to multiclass? What roleplaying or mechanical void are they trying to fill? Which desires aren't being met by the current lineup of classes?

I suspect that most players who want to play multiclass characters fall into two camps:

1. Minmaxers looking for optimal mechanical efficiency. I was in this camp in 3E's multiclass-friendly system. I abused the heck out of it, winding up with a rogue/ranger/fighter/wild runner/scout/shadowdancer/dread commando with a flying, incorporeal, can-only-be-harmed-by-magic undead companion. That character was sick, and could solo most anything. Sigh. Ah, 3E.
2. Roleplayers looking for a little differentiation. A dash of flavor to an otherwise vanilla straight-class character.

What I want the 5E designers to do is ignore the first camp. That game already exists, and it's called 3.x (including Pathfinder).

Instead, focus on the second camp. It's a much bigger camp. And it keeps your game out of the perilous waters of Multiclass Reef, where the edge-case of multiclassing forces undesirable design constraints on base class design: see the previous suggestion to space the poor Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies over 3 levels. Ridiculous, except if you have to take 3e-style level-dipping into account.

So don't take it into account. Just don't do it, at all.

Focus instead on the desires of the roleplayers. Start by adding cantrips or single armor or weapon proficiency to the existing Backgrounds, as appropriate: cleric cantrips for priest, mage cantrips to sage, longsword or chainmail to Soldier, and so on. Then, give everyone a first-level feat that can only be spent on a restricted feat list: the Disciple feats for those that want to dabble in casting, a suite of similarly-powered feats for dabbling in non-caster classes, and a small collection of low-power generic-but-universally-useful feats (improved initiative and such) for those who don't want to dabble.

Finally, throw a bone to those seeking true hybrids by (shudder) bloating the class list. It's inevitable anyway given the demands of the RPG marketplace. Might as well make class-bloat a feature by introducing, via supplemental rulebooks, new classes that are hybrids of all the basic class combos. ftr/wiz, ftr/rog, ftr/clr, wiz/rog, wiz/clr, clr/rog. Instead of a straight mish-mash of class features from the source classes, these would be all-new classes thoughtfully designed to present a true hybrid experience. No need to hybridize classes that are already hybrids (bard, ranger, paladin). And barbarian, druid, and monk don't feel like they lend themselves to hybridization.

That seems like a straighter, better path. Satisfies the needs of everyone, prioritizing roleplayers first, and not repeating the... mistakes is the wrong word, let's call it simply "choices" of previous editions.

 

[MoonSong]

Instead of looking at the mechanics of multiclassing, 5E's designers should take a step back and look instead at the intent of the player.

Why do players want to multiclass? What roleplaying or mechanical void are they trying to fill? Which desires aren't being met by the current lineup of classes?

I suspect that most players who want to play multiclass characters fall into two camps:

1. Minmaxers looking for optimal mechanical efficiency. I was in this camp in 3E's multiclass-friendly system. I abused the heck of it, winding up with a rogue/ranger/fighter/wild runner/scout/shadowdancer/dread commando with a flying, incorporeal, can-only-be-harmed-by-magic undead companion. That character was sick, and could solo most anything. Sigh. Ah, 3E.
2. Roleplayers looking for a little differentiation. A dash of flavor to an otherwise vanilla straight-class character.

What I want the 5E designers to do is ignore the first camp. That game already exists, and it's called 3.x (including Pathfinder).

Instead, focus on the second camp. It's a much bigger camp. And it keeps your game out of the perilous waters of Multiclass Reef, where the edge-case of multiclassing forces undesirable design constraints on base class design: see the previous suggestion to space the poor Fighter's weapon and armor proficiencies over 3 levels. Ridiculous, except if you have to take 3e-style level-dipping into account.

So don't take it into account. Just don't do it, at all.

Focus instead on the desires of the roleplayers. Start by adding cantrips or single armor or weapon proficiency to the existing Backgrounds, as appropriate: cleric cantrips for priest, mage cantrips to sage, longsword or chainmail to Soldier, and so on. Then, give everyone a first-level feat that can only be spent on a restricted feat list: the Disciple feats for those that want to dabble in casting, a suite of similarly-powered feats for dabbling in non-caster classes, and a small collection of low-power generic-but-universally-useful feats (improved initiative and such) for those who don't want to dabble.

Finally, throw a bone to those seeking true hybrids by (shudder) bloating the class list. It's inevitable anyway given the demands of the RPG marketplace. Might as well make class-bloat a feature by introducing, via supplemental rulebooks, new classes that are hybrids of all the basic class combos. ftr/wiz, ftr/rog, ftr/clr, wiz/rog, wiz/clr, clr/rog. Instead of a straight mish-mash of class features from the source classes, these would be all-new classes thoughtfully designed to present a true hybrid experience. No need to hybridize classes that are already hybrids (bard, ranger, paladin). And barbarian, druid, and monk don't feel like they lend themselves to hybridization.

That seems like a straighter, better path. Satisfies the needs of everyone, prioritizing roleplayers first, and not repeating the... mistakes is the wrong word, let's call it simply "choices" of previous editions.

Well don't assume every tinkerer is a minmaxer or an optimizer and that all roleplayers want only a little slight differentiation. I've already posted at least four valid approaches to multiclassing over and over over the months and don't feel like repeating myself again. And even then, excluding minmaxers for the sake of excluding minmaxers will only exclude people who aren't minmaxers -and it is needlessly antagonizing- by definition the only way to exclude minmazers is by dumping out every single piece of customizability on the game (you know, one cannot min-max in chess), it isn't worthy. (And maybe I'm redying too much between the lines but I think you are trying to demonize something you don't like by strawmanning).

Yes it's no secret that successfully converting my Rogue-druid-sorcerer-MT or my tiefling-wizard-slaying elf are my acid tests for any multiclass system, but it is also no secret that I've also asked to use less points for stats, or take gratuitous flaws or just outright ask for permision to turn that 11 I rolled on strength into a 6, or use a weapon I'm not proficient in, or roll an evoker with only abjuration, enchantment and divination as allowed schools. So no, just no. By your own argument everybody should have been happy with 4e MCing (of course because we know it had zero min maxers) and guess what, that isn't the case.

Yes some roleplayers don't care about the numbers on the CS, but not all of them, some actually do care about them (my background says I truly suck at swimming but according to my character sheet it's impossible for me to drown!!) and that also includes multiclassing (I was an expert thief but repented and now I'm focussed on saving children and figting evil, how comes I keep getting better at being a thief while not getting any better at being a paladin?)

 

[Gundark]

In time, we will probably drown in subclasses.

This

 

[Zaruthustran]

(And maybe I'm redying too much between the lines but I think you are trying to demonize something you don't like by strawmanning).

I think you're correct: you are reading too much between the lines (and not reading the actual lines).

It's NOT my point to exclude minmaxers. I myself am a minmaxer. I'm very familiar with the joys of character optimization: you can check my previous posts in that subforum. There are thousands.

My point is that D&D 3E has already delivered the level-dip multiclass minmax experience, so 5E is an opportunity to take a different tack guided by an examination of players' motivation to multiclass. The tack I suggested ignores (not excludes; ignores) minmaxers in favor of designing toward the needs of what I called roleplayers. Not trying to start a fight or a debate about merits of player behavior, just referencing Robin Laws' player types. Specifically, by roleplayers I meant players (or more accurately: customers) whose primary motivation to multiclass isn't power, but rather is flavor.

At the end of the day... heck, at the start of the day 5e is a product. As a product, I think it's wise for the designers to keep customers in mind. To occasionally step back and re-examine design choices and ask, "what customer desire is driving this design choice? Is this design choice the best way to satisfy that desire?" My concern with 3e-style multiclassing is that it appears to be a simple rehash of a previous edition's solution to multiclassing, rather than a fresh solution to a new examination of customer motivation for multiclassing.

By your own argument everybody should have been happy with 4e MCing (of course because we know it had zero min maxers) and guess what, that isn't the case.

I don't understand this reference. I never mentioned 4e. I'm talking about 5e.

Yes some roleplayers don't care about the numbers on the CS, but not all of them, some actually do care about them (my background says I truly suck at swimming but according to my character sheet it's impossible for me to drown!!) and that also includes multiclassing (I was an expert thief but repented and now I'm focussed on saving children and figting evil, how comes I keep getting better at being a thief while not getting any better at being a paladin?)

I don't understand this paragraph.

 

[MoonSong]

I think you're correct: you are reading too much between the lines (and not reading the actual lines).

It's NOT my point to exclude minmaxers. I myself am a minmaxer. I'm very familiar with the joys of character optimization: you can check my previous posts in that subforum. There are thousands.

My point is that D&D 3E has already delivered the level-dip multiclass minmax experience, so 5E is an opportunity to take a different tack guided by an examination of players' motivation to multiclass. The tack I suggested ignores (not excludes; ignores) minmaxers in favor of designing toward the needs of what I called roleplayers. Not trying to start a fight or a debate about merits of player behavior, just referencing Robin Laws' player types. Specifically, by roleplayers I meant players (or more accurately: customers) whose primary motivation to multiclass isn't power, but rather is flavor.

At the end of the day... heck, at the start of the day 5e is a product. As a product, I think it's wise for the designers to keep customers in mind. To occasionally step back and re-examine design choices and ask, "what customer desire is driving this design choice? Is this design choice the best way to satisfy that desire?" My concern with 3e-style multiclassing is that it appears to be a thoughtless rehash of a previous edition's solution to multiclassing, rather than a fresh solution to a new examination of customer motivation for multiclassing.

Didn't want to post this all over again, but here it is

Reasons for multiclassing

-For optimization
-For a sprinkle of extra flavor (get a perk)
-For blending archetypes
-To be truly unique in the world, (I'm an empowered and special elf who just loves to kick tiefling asses and have studdied and practiced all techniques available to do that. I have a sense of camaraderie and respect with paladins and good rangers alike. Oh and one of my ancestors was a dragon too, my class levels just happen to be rogue5/ranger2/paladin1/sorcerer7 it is all coincidental)
-To show and express character growth

Your model "dipping only and then some set in stone blending of two" doesn't really deliver in all of those cases. Also it brings out to much class bloat and still isn't as flexible.

I don't understand this reference. I never mentioned 4e. I'm talking about 5e.

4e featured your model, while good for blending archetypes it wasn't truly satisfactory. Since you mentioned 3.x as something to get away from, I mention 4e already did that and it wasn't so good. (Don't get me wrong, hybrid + paragon multiclassing is better than having none, but still it isn't as flexible)

I don't understand this paragraph.

I meant that your attempt to catter to roleplayers actually happens to exclude roleplayers.