D&D 5E Multiclassing discussion

[Nagol]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

Being used to AD&D style "Gish" multiclassing, the "Dip" style strikes me as being meant for a classless style of game, or else for a charop style of game.

To be fair, it existed for humans in 1e as well. I saw a fair number of Fighter or Ranger converting to spell casters later. Some of the Fighters were trying for Bard; some just wanted specialisation, extra hp, better saves, multi-attacks, etc.

 

[Quickleaf]

To be fair, it existed for humans in 1e as well. I saw a fair number of Fighter or Ranger converting to spell casters later. Some of the Fighters were trying for Bard; some just wanted specialisation, extra hp, better saves, multi-attacks, etc.

Yep, in my 2e Planescape game I had a dual-classed fighter 2, wizard for the rest of their career for precisely that reason. There was a veneer of story but it was about the abilities.

It was a bad rule back in 1e too.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

I'm not an advocate, but I suspect that one reason for the "dip" multiclassing -- beyond front-loaded classes that gave away a lot of abilities for a one- or two-level dip -- was the execution of prestige classes. Lots of the prestige classes assumed levels in multiple classes but could be met by taking just a single level, which was critical when maintaining advancement in things like spellcasting levels.

5E's challenge, I think, is to deter this type of point multiclassing while still allowing players to build the style of characters they envision. I don't think there is (or at least don't recall discussion of) a prestige class-style mechanic for 5E, so that may help, and I know there's been talk of making core classes less front-loaded. But it's a tall order in any case.

 

[Obryn]

I'm not an advocate, but I suspect that one reason for the "dip" multiclassing -- beyond front-loaded classes that gave away a lot of abilities for a one- or two-level dip -- was the execution of prestige classes. Lots of the prestige classes assumed levels in multiple classes but could be met by taking just a single level, which was critical when maintaining advancement in things like spellcasting levels.

5E's challenge, I think, is to deter this type of point multiclassing while still allowing players to build the style of characters they envision. I don't think there is (or at least don't recall discussion of) a prestige class-style mechanic for 5E, so that may help, and I know there's been talk of making core classes less front-loaded. But it's a tall order in any case.

Yeah, for me - leaving aside my mechanical concerns - this style of multiclassing just isn't what D&D is about. I want to be able to look at a cool class, say, "I want to play that!" and have it work for the full level range. I like strong archetypes in characters; I'm kind of oldschool that way, I guess.

The further D&D moves away from strong classes, the more I wonder why I'm playing D&D instead of an actual point-buy or skill-based game.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

But that's exactly the point. By multiclassing, you are giving something up. That's the ability to cast those extremely powerful high level spells. You get something in exchange for it: More versatility in the spells you can cast and more spells prepared.

If you want the high level spells, don't multiclass. It's simple. I'm really glad there is a reason NOT to multiclass in this edition.

Of course they have to give something up. I'm saying that getting the lower level abilities of 2 classes does not equal losing the high level abilities of one class.

 

[Dausuul]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

There are really three ways to approach multiclassing, each one of which supports a different concept:

• The Dabble. The PC wants to snag a few minor tricks from another class--a spell or two, a combat technique, et cetera. This is typically handled with feats rather than actual multiclassing.
• The Light Blend. The PC still wants to focus on the primary class, but integrate aspects of the secondary class. For example, a wizard might want to cast spells in armor and carry a sword as a backup weapon, or a fighter might want to be able to fight unarmored like a barbarian and rage for extra-tough fights. This is where you dip a level or two, sacrificing a bit of your primary class's power in exchange for adding these secondary elements.
• The Full Blend. The PC wants to fully meld the two classes, using them both in equal measure--the classic "gish." This is where you keep your levels more or less even.

Ideally, the system would support all three of these without creating balance problems. The Light Blend obviously carries the risk that if a class has powerful front-loaded features, you can dip a level to cherry-pick those features and get more than you give up. However, I think 5E does a good job of avoiding this; I have yet to see a 1-level dip that strikes me as overpowered. (There are a couple of spots where a 2-level dip can net you a big boost; specifically, the fighter's Action Surge and the enchanter's Aura of Antipathy. Fortunately, we have the Word from Mearls that at least one of these has been addressed already.)

Even in 3E, it was very hard to break the game dipping core classes only. You had to venture into prestige classes and splatbooks to find the Dips of Doom.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Of course they have to give something up. I'm saying that getting the lower level abilities of 2 classes does not equal losing the high level abilities of one class.

I'd say that point is debatable. I think one person might think that's the case and someone else might not. Which is precisely what I like about it. One person will REALLY want those high level spells but others may be willing to make the tradeoff.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have a question for advocates of 3e/5e style "Dip" multiclassing: If you can play a fighter 1 / mage 6, what is the point of having the classes at all? I mean, I understand wanting to play a fighter / mage as a character concept, but a fighter 1 / mage 6 isn't a concept...it's an optimizing tool. At least my limited exposure to 3e saw it used that way. Do people who are in favor of 3e/5e style multiclassing like it precisely because it lets them optimize?

I don't, I am in favor because (as I mentioned previously) it enables narrative concepts such as "character who picks up a secondary area of expertise" and "character who changes his path in mid-life" which are not possible with AD&D-style multiclassing (dual-classing could cover the latter, but definitely the old rules for this weren't working fine). For the former purpose, which IMO is more important, 3e-style multiclassing gives you all the freedom you want.

As much as I don't like the game of optimization through combining classes, it is a legitimate playstyle in D&D, and incidentally it has made WotC a fortune in splatbooks sales in the 3e era.

The core of the problem is that such playstyle can be incredibly irritating for other players at the game table. How are we going to solve the table incompatibility between the optimization-lovers and the optimization-haters? By cutting off either half of the gamerbase from the next edition? You can forget about that, WotC would never willingly cut off so many potential customers! And what if they decided to cut off your side instead, because they think it's slightly smaller?

Multiclassing only allows you at most 2 classes, and no class can be more than 2 levels behind the other.

IMHO the best they can do is just label multiclassing as "OPTIONAL". Just that small label is enough to tell any optimizer that the optimization tool which is multiclassing is not something they are granted by divine right, but rather something that needs to be enabled by each gaming group depending on their overall agreement, knowing how it can change the game.

I've played 3e games where one of the main house rule was "no multiclassing", and it's always easy to do so, but an official label can help a lot, because all new DMs are probably just going to assume that everything that is not specifically label as optional is always fine and has no problem.

A simple sidebar or small paragraph can suggest optional restrictions like "max N classes" (which works great) or "max L level difference" (which doesn't work so great). But again they should better be suggestions to the DM rather than hard-coded rules. The DM and players should get the feeling that they are free to choose how their game should work, not feel like they are being patronized about how they should play, but instead feel like they are being informed about how they could play the game in different ways.

Thus that sidebar/paragraph could explain briefly to the new DM what happens to the game if multiclassing is freely allowed, and tell her to consider maybe to run her first game with some restrictions (e.g. max 2 classes per PC) and see how it works, before allowing full freedom.

 

[Derren]

No it's more about preventing the character you envision.

I envision organically grown characters who take classes to fit their story which sometimes means lopsided multiclassing (the assassin seeking redemption for example).
But nice of you to admit that you are not really into this role playing thing.

 

[Quickleaf]

The Light Blend obviously carries the risk that if a class has powerful front-loaded features, you can dip a level to cherry-pick those features and get more than you give up. However, I think 5E does a good job of avoiding this; I have yet to see a 1-level dip that strikes me as overpowered. (There are a couple of spots where a 2-level dip can net you a big boost; specifically, the fighter's Action Surge and the enchanter's Aura of Antipathy. Fortunately, we have the Word from Mearls that at least one of these has been addressed already.)

Even in 3E, it was very hard to break the game dipping core classes only. You had to venture into prestige classes and splatbooks to find the Dips of Doom.

It is precisely the front-loading and "dead levels" that concerns me, that players who want a Light Blend are interested in charopping primarily, rather than creating an actual character. I am behind on the playtest, so will trust your say-so that 5e is looking good in this department.

The core of the problem is that such playstyle can be incredibly irritating for other players at the game table. How are we going to solve the table incompatibility between the optimization-lovers and the optimization-haters? By cutting off either half of the gamerbase from the next edition? You can forget about that, WotC would never willingly cut off so many potential customers! And what if they decided to cut off your side instead, because they think it's slightly smaller?

Hah! I am such a small customer for WotC they really have nothing to worry about cutting off gamers like me There will always be role-playing games I can play and enjoy, and I have a great capacity for adapting my play style to whatever the group wan

OOC:

ts to try.

To answer your question: I would not cut out either side of the gamerbase. I would solve the issue with design in three ways:

• Place some requirements, both roleplaying and mechanical, on multiclassing. Emphasize the story of what it means. Make them find a mentor/college and study for at least a year...after all the party wizard studied for several years presumably, it is only fair. Make the player choose trade offs.
• Create a "Gish" class (call it whatever) to handle 50% of the multiclassers.
• Playtest the hell out of the multiclass rules, since you know there are players who will try to use them to break the game. The first step will probably be not to front-load classes and establish a relatively equal power level between classes on a level-by-level basis.

It's not that I don't support emergent gameplay and changing your character over the course of the game. I think that's great! It's when the character creation rules become a mini-game (and are written in a bland way to encourage the mini-game) that I think the game suffers more the need be.