D&D 5E Proposal: Fighter/mage/thief: quick and dirty concurrent multiclassing/gestalt rules

[FormerlyHemlock]

OK, so let me get this straight:

A level 1 Fighter/Mage in your system would have literally all the features of a 1st-level Fighter (including hit points, proficiencies, and class features) and all the spellcasting abilities of a 1st-level Wizard? Compared to, say, a 1st-level Fighter, who will just have the fighter abilities? I'm not a fan of excessive intraparty balance, but that seems grossly unfair. That's almost identical to a Ftr1/Wiz1 using the core multiclassing rules--a 2nd level character.

So, 300 XP later. The 1st-level Fighter becomes a 2nd-level Fighter while the Fighter/Mage stays the same, so they're kinda even. Great. Then, 300 XP later still, the hybrid character advances in both classes, gaining the exact same features that the solo Fighter just got, plus a whole bunch of new Wizard features. So once again, the hybrid character is way ahead.

Am I correct?

Yes, as far as your question goes. But another 300 XP later, the Fighter/Wizard is behind again (no 2nd level spells). For a while, the multiclassed guy is only about a level behind the single-classed guy, but the gap widens at higher levels. A 17th level single-classed character would be 13th level if multiclassed with two classes, or 10th level if three.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Seems like this would be overpowered at low levels. 2700 xp, for instance?

That's always been the case with multiclassing. Very powerful at low levels; arguably underpowered at high levels, although that depends on how much you value capstones and high-level spells.

If you were getting ASIs from all classes it would definitely be overpowered at all levels.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Interesting. I initially thought that it might be balanced out by the multiclassed characters having a lower proficiency bonus than the dual-classed ones, but it looks like they'd only generally be a maximum of 1 behind, and often at the same level.

Remember that levels 1-12ish are generally the career length of a character. Something that balances out at level 15 isn't really relevant in most cases.

That makes 1-9ish the career length of a multiclassed character, or 1-8ish if triple-classed. To me that seems significantly different than 1-12ish.

Would you rather be a Fighter 1/Abjuror 11, or a 9th level Battlemaster/Abjuror? It is not at all clear to me that the 9th level Battlemaster/Abjuror is "better", in combat or out. It certainly is different though, and if you play for a long, long, long time you will enjoy being a 20th level Battlemaster/Abjuror more than a Fighter 1/Abjuror 19--but how many people are going to play campaigns that long?

If anyone can illustrate any interesting abuses of old-school multiclassing more powerful than what can achieved via newstyle 5E multiclassing, I'm all ears. To my powergamer instincts, something like a Shadow Monk/Bladesinger is interesting and potentially fun, but incredibly MAD and not clearly better than just having an actual Shadow Monk + Bladesinger in the party separately, and clearly worse than having a Rogue 2/Shadow Monk X and a Fighter 1/Wizard X.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd be tempted to say that multi-classing as two classes requires the XP advancement of three classes.

And three requires four times? Or six times?

I could buy that as something to try out, but in that case I'd give them back all of their ASIs and class features like double Fighting Styles.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What about certain races not being about to take certain classes? What do you think about that in the context of your houserules?

That's a separate issue from multiclassing actually, because the 5E DMG already covers the issue of certain class restrictions, like "only Humans can be paladins." I think it's fine, if you want race to be a mechanically important thing your campaign. In a campaign where I wanted race to be an important thing, I'd probably do something like allow UA Artificers but restrict them to only dwarves; allow only certain old-school multiclass combinations on a per-race basis like Fighter/Cleric for dwarves and Barbarian/Druid for half-orcs; and most important of all, give all the races distinct cultures and attitudes complete with a "race bible" handout for players on how humans/elves/dwarves/half-orcs are all raised to be different.

In short, restricting multiclass combinations and restricting single-class or newstyle PHB multiclassing look the same to me. A DM will do it if it fits his campaign.

I don't know if I answered the question you were trying to ask.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What is you goal with this? What issues are you trying to address with it?

The issue I'm addressing is that 5E doesn't really have multiclassing rules, and some people enjoy multiclassing. It has rules for constructing custom classes, masquerading as multiclassing rules. If you write up a "build" like Paladin 6/Sorc 1/Warlock 2/Paladin 9/Sorc 9, you still wind up gaining a new feature at almost every level, just like a PHB class--but the features you gain at each level are all scrambled. Essentially, you've created a new class, the Paladorlock.

That's substantially different from old-school multiclassing, in which you're simply someone who trains in both classes simultaneously--it allows a three-man party to function like a six-man party, in some ways and under certain limitations. I don't have any deep insight into the origins of multiclassing (perhaps [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas has some Gygaxian perspective here) but it is a part of (A)D&D, and so my goal is to bring that part of AD&D forward into 5E somehow without breaking any 5E idioms.

The immediate impetus for this thread is the Bladesinger thread, in which a poster lamented the fact that WotC has never gotten around to releasing rules for "gestalt" multiclassing which could be used to model Bladesingers. Since I've actually played with gesltalt multiclassing in 5E, and I've learned certain things not to do, I wanted to write up some rules for multiclassing using the lessons learned. I also wanted to spark discussion with other people who've tried their own variants, like Fanaelialae.

Can 5E survive without multiclassing rules? Sure. But it would be kind of nice to have them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Similarly, their prepared/known spells are gained per class, but their spell slots are as a single classed character. I think that allowing a hybrid to double (or triple) up on spell slots might be a bit much. 5e tries to rein in spellcasters by limiting their number of spells per day, so allowing them to ignore that limitation seems like it might be overkill.

Just to clarify:

If you have a 9th level Wizard/Cleric, are you saying he has only exactly the same spell slots as a 9th level Wizard, 4/3/3/3/1, but can freely spend them on either wizard or cleric spells?

If so, this would seem to make warrior/wizards (or any kind of spellcaster/noncaster) the strongest kind of hybrid class because you're not losing any features, unlike e.g. bard/wizard. This is especially so because you're granting double ASIs, so warrior/wizards don't wind up MAD. Is that consequence intentional?

 

[Tony Vargas]

The issue I'm addressing is that 5E doesn't really have multiclassing rules, and some people enjoy multiclassing. That's substantially different from old-school multiclassing, in which you're simply someone who trains in both classes simultaneously

There's no reason you couldn't advance in two classes simultaneously, you just do it alternately. One level in one class, one level in the other. 1. 1/1. 2/1. 2/2, etc, topping out at 10/10. A simple rule to make it truly simultaneous would be to level only at even number. You start at 2nd, as a 1/1, at 3rd nothing happens - when you reach 4th, you're a 2/2.

I don't have any deep insight into the origins of multiclassing (perhaps [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or [MENTION=8900]Tony[/MENTION]Vargas has some Gygaxian perspective here)

IDK. I always had the impression it was mainly about giving elves a sort of fey sense to them via magic, while also making them physically very competent with attributes of fighter and/or thief.

Mechanically - perhaps counter-intuitively - it was about making the game humanocentric. No, hear me out. While non-/demi- human MC characters absolutely dominated at 1st level, brutal level limits quickly put them far behind human PCs, advancing, if at all, only as thieves getting 1/2 or 1/3rd the exp of everyone else. So the endgame was human-dominated (mostly by human wizards, of course). Old-school MCing, without those race & level limits would be insanely broken. Actually, not 'would be,' since folks did it, no speculation is involved. ;P As broken as spell points, it was.

But, maybe that's all academic, as balance wasn't exactly ever achievable back then, nor much of a priority, now.

:shrug: have fun with it.

Can 5E survive without multiclassing rules? Sure. But it would be kind of nice to have them.

5e really can survive very nicely without any MCing rules (not even the optional ones it provides) - thank to existing sub-classes like the EK and Bladesinger, Feat options that introduce mechanics from other classes, and Backgrounds that touch the concept space of various classes.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't see this concept causing a real balance problem. Broadly, any concept you do is going to fall into 3 broad categories (ignoring tripleclassing): caster/caster, caster/martial, and martial/martial.

Caster/caster seems like it would be stupidly powerful, but what it really does is provide endurance at the cost of higher-level spell options. The general nerfing of 5e spells, the need for concentration for most useful spells, and the shorter duration of the average 5e combat doesn't allow the higher volume of spell output to have as much impact on balance. It simply allows a stronger contribution as the number of encounters per long rest increases. As someone who's less concerned about resource attrition then I am about alpha-strikes and novas, this doesn't bother me. The one combination I might worry about is Sorcerer/Other Caster. I would probably say that only Sorcerer slots can be turned into Sorcery Points, and vice versa. I would allow metamagic to be used on either spell list, though, or the combination isn't really worthwhile (and much less fun!).

Martial/caster does what most smart multiclass dips for casters, provide better proficiencies and at-will options for greater contribution and stamina when spells aren't being utilized. The trade off is hit points for greater breadth of abilities, and like the caster/caster, better sustainability for longer adventuring days, at the cost of better ability to survive harder battles due to less hit points.

Martial/martial might be where I could see some balance problems, because of the greater synergy between martial abilities. I would imagine Rogue/Martial to be very popular combinations, due to the synergy between SA advancement and Extra Attack as means of damage increases.

All in all, though, it seems like a lot of fun. I'm definitely thinking of using it for on my next campaigns. My early brainstorming is to allow only humans to multiclass (emphasizing human versatility), while other races can only dual-class and possibly have some extra racial benefits at level up, as sort of a pseudo-multiclass.

 

[TwoSix]

Mechanically - perhaps counter-intuitively - it was about making the game humanocentric. No, hear me out. While non-/demi- human MC characters absolutely dominated at 1st level, brutal level limits quickly put them far behind human PCs, advancing, if at all, only as thieves getting 1/2 or 1/3rd the exp of everyone else. So the endgame was human-dominated (mostly by human wizards, of course). Old-school MCing, without those race & level limits would be insanely broken. Actually, not 'would be,' since folks did it, no speculation is involved. ;P As broken as spell points, it was.

I do agree that 1e was definitely like that (although that's mostly hearsay, as I never really played 1e). 2e, on the other hand, with its relaxed level limits and plethora of support for multiclass kits, created a strong incentive to multiclass. Unless you were doing a particular concept that wasn't allowed to multiclass, like a paladin or a druid, pretty much everybody multiclassed who had any familiarity with the system. Fighter/thief, fighter/mage (cough...bladesingers), fighter/mage/thief, cleric/ranger, and cleric/mage were easily the most popular character types when I played 2e.