D&D 5E A 10-Level Variant for 5E for review and work

[TwoSix]

Example. A player wanted to make a Cleric/Wizard (primary class is always listed first). Instead of choosing a domain (e.g. subclass) for his Cleric as normal, he chooses "Wizard" and gains the features of a 1st level Wizard.

How is the spellcasting progression handled in this case?

 

[DND_Reborn]

How is the spellcasting progression handled in this case?

They are tracked separately, at least right now.

However, given the potential power of a dual-caster mixes, I might have them use the primary classes spells slots, but can now apply them to either class. Of course, the Wizard spells would be capped by the secondary class still.

In the example of a Cleric 10 (Wizard 4), you would have full 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 slots. They would know 9th level cleric spells, but only 4th level wizards spells. I am debating whether or not I would allow the higher level slots to be used for Wizard spells?

Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[Blue]

Interesting ideas. Still reviewing - have to run for a family event.

Question about intent - do you envision foes as if the character level x2 as well? A thought survivability. HPs are enhanced some with the second ability score but not as much as core, which you mention. There is an AC boost and save boosts (indirectly vs. proficiency boost), but to degree those are offsetting the lack of ASIs. And with four non-proficient saves I'd worry that the lower HPs will be very telling.

From a design perspective, have you thought about the effect of ASI removal for SAD vs. MAD classes? There might need to be an offset to keep balance.

 

[TwoSix]

They are tracked separately, at least right now.

However, given the potential power of a dual-caster mixes, I might have them use the primary classes spells slots, but can now apply them to either class. Of course, the Wizard spells would be capped by the secondary class still.

In the example of a Cleric 10 (Wizard 4), you would have full 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 slots. They would know 9th level cleric spells, but only 4th level wizards spells. I am debating whether or not I would allow the higher level slots to be used for Wizard spells?

Do you have any thoughts on this?

It's tough, because we're way outside PHB guidelines at this point. It becomes a judgment call as to how each combination of Non-Cast, Half-Cast, and Full-Cast should work.

The closest corollary we have is a multiclass of warlock and a caster, those have two different spell progressions that don't stack with each other, but are allowed to share their spell lists between both their spell slot resources. I think I would probably follow that model as an example.

So for the Cleric/Wizard example, I would allow them to track the Wizard spell progression as a completely separate entity, with its own spell slots and spell list. Resource-wise, this is an obvious buff over PHB standard, but your current setup is establishing its own baseline, so I don't if that's particularly problematic. And I like to keep a system where a Wizard/Cleric has more spells than a Paladin/Cleric, which has more than a Fighter/Cleric.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Interesting ideas. Still reviewing - have to run for a family event.

Question about intent - do you envision foes as if the character level x2 as well? A thought survivability. HPs are enhanced some with the second ability score but not as much as core, which you mention. There is an AC boost and save boosts (indirectly vs. proficiency boost), but to degree those are offsetting the lack of ASIs. And with four non-proficient saves I'd worry that the lower HPs will be very telling.

From a design perspective, have you thought about the effect of ASI removal for SAD vs. MAD classes? There might need to be an offset to keep balance.

Cool, I hope you have a great time with the family!

I don't quite envision foes as character level x2. The lower HP is somewhat offset by AC and proficiency, but I am writing up a design notes pages to include that discusses some of this. Saves are interesting because in AD&D they all improved, so I have thoughts of adding a third save around 5th or 6th level. Or possibly at 1st even, so players can choose a save which they think they will need but isn't granted by class?

I don't see how removing ASI affects SAD vs. MAD. This is due to two factors in our games anyway:

1. If you want to play a MAD character, we use point buy or rolling, so you assign your points to get at least decent bonuses of +2 where you need them or hope you roll well enough. With the max proficiency at +8 (I am reducing it from +9) and +2, you are close to the normal +11 max in RAW anyway. With the higher max proficiency, you don't need 18s and 20s to be effective.

2. ASIs are used for feats over 90% of the time. Since many feats do boost ability scores, you can still increase them that way.

If your point is otherwise, please elaborate when you have time and thanks for your input.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's tough, because we're way outside PHB guidelines at this point. It becomes a judgment call as to how each combination of Non-Cast, Half-Cast, and Full-Cast should work.

The closest corollary we have is a multiclass of warlock and a caster, those have two different spell progressions that don't stack with each other, but are allowed to share their spell lists between both their spell slot resources. I think I would probably follow that model as an example.

So for the Cleric/Wizard example, I would allow them to track the Wizard spell progression as a completely separate entity, with its own spell slots and spell list. Resource-wise, this is an obvious buff over PHB standard, but your current setup is establishing its own baseline, so I don't if that's particularly problematic. And I like to keep a system where a Wizard/Cleric has more spells than a Paladin/Cleric, which has more than a Fighter/Cleric.

Yeah, we are way off the range on this huh?

As I said, my initial thought is simply to keep it separate, but I do worry about having extra spell slots, etc. Of course, dual-caster mixes have always been weaker in other respects.

 

[Blue]

Saves are interesting because in AD&D they all improved, so I have thoughts of adding a third save around 5th or 6th level. Or possibly at 1st even, so players can choose a save which they think they will need but isn't granted by class?

As I play more higher level 5e, so many bad saves not increasing vs. increasing DCs is actually starting to irritate. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind two full-proficiency save, two half-proficiency saves, and two no-proficiency saves. Which would be on-par, below-par, and suck, since DC is always increasing at full proficiency. But that's a personal preference, not sure if that would be the best fit for L10 5e. Though it wouldn't suck. Give each class a pick of a good & poor save for full and again for half.

I don't see how removing ASI affects SAD vs. MAD.

In normal play across several distinct tables, we tend to see more ASI (half targeted half-feats) than feats (3:1?) until their prime ability score is a 20. But after that we see SAD characters going primarily for feats and MAD characters continuing with ASI.

When a paladin needs a high STR, CON and CHR, and an archer needs just DEX, the archer can put their highest in DEX, take some feats that focus on it and some feats that don't. The paladin will be taking lots of half-feats, even if they don't particularly fit ("Yes, my knight of justice has always been a fabulous Actor capable of mimicry. I minored in it Theater at Paladin Academy"), trying to raise multiple ability scores to reasonable levels - and taking a lot longer to do so with +1s rather than +2s.

 

[Esker]

If you have time, give the multiclassing concept some thought. I like the principle behind it (basically like an Eldritch Knight could be made instead as a Fighter/Wizard), and hope the power balance won't become an issue.

I like the idea of it, in that it gives you the option of customizing your subclass to fit whatever class flavor you want, without sacrificing the core progression of your base class. The fact that you can still get your spell levels, or extra attack, etc. on time, for example, while picking up some features from other classes is nice. Compared to RAW multiclassing, I would characterize this as giving you more "horizontal" flexibility, by effectively giving everybody 11 new subclasses they can choose from.

You sacrifice "vertical" flexibility, though, in that you don't have as much freedom to adjust the proportions of each class in your build: you have a primary and secondary, and they progress in a fixed way. For example, if your primary class is fighter or rogue, and you want to get a little bit of wizard, your only choice in this system is to take, essentially, what amounts to 8 levels in the RAW level system. That makes you sort of a 1/3 caster, like an eldritch knight or arcane trickster; and that's the only way to do it. If you want a more even split between martial and caster, you can't do it.

As a player of an arcane trickster who chose to multiclass into wizard because I wanted more than the 1/3 caster that AT gives you on its own, this system doesn't address my issue with the existing system, which is that there's no way to sort of titrate your build to accelerate your magical progression just a little at the cost of just a little delay in your primary class's progression: you either wind up just flat out delaying your magical progression by dipping caster, or you have to invest a lot of levels, thus paying a lot on your primary class side, to get a little bit faster progression of your casting. What I would have liked to see is a way that you can take one or two wizard levels as an EK or AT, and have this allow you to gain 2nd / 3rd level spells a little bit sooner than a single classed EK/AT, while delaying your fighter/rogue features by 1-2 levels. However, this is arguably a bit of a corner case, since EK and AT are the only single classed (full or part) casters that don't have their own spell list.

As far as balance goes, my chief concern with your multiclassing system is that, having collapsed multiple levels into "level 1" of a class, you're getting two levels worth of stuff for each level in your secondary class, but giving up only one level worth of stuff by trading away the corresponding subclass features. If it were "first set of subclass features" vs "level 1 of another class" in the vanilla level chart that would be more balanced, but the collapsed class chart skews things in favor of muticlassing, it seems to me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

As I play more higher level 5e, so many bad saves not increasing vs. increasing DCs is actually starting to irritate. From a personal perspective, I wouldn't mind two full-proficiency save, two half-proficiency saves, and two no-proficiency saves. Which would be on-par, below-par, and suck, since DC is always increasing at full proficiency. But that's a personal preference, not sure if that would be the best fit for L10 5e. Though it wouldn't suck. Give each class a pick of a good & poor save for full and again for half.

I liked the 3E good/poor saves (or whatever it was), and I think allowing players to get the class saves at full proficiency, and choose two saves (player's choice) for half proficiency, would be a good compromise. It helps offset the lower HP in some cases and I will probably add it.

In normal play across several distinct tables, we tend to see more ASI (half targeted half-feats) than feats (3:1?) until their prime ability score is a 20. But after that we see SAD characters going primarily for feats and MAD characters continuing with ASI.

When a paladin needs a high STR, CON and CHR, and an archer needs just DEX, the archer can put their highest in DEX, take some feats that focus on it and some feats that don't. The paladin will be taking lots of half-feats, even if they don't particularly fit ("Yes, my knight of justice has always been a fabulous Actor capable of mimicry. I minored in it Theater at Paladin Academy"), trying to raise multiple ability scores to reasonable levels - and taking a lot longer to do so with +1s rather than +2s.

This has always been the case in with MAD vs. SAD. Generally, MAD classes have more powerful abilities baked into their class, and SAD classes tend to be more focused.

The idea in L10 is for ability scores to not be as vital. Since proficiency goes up a bit more, it isn't necessary for ability scores to max out to 18 or 20. A character at 10th level with having 16 from 1st level on will still get a +11 on checks, etc., in balance with normal 5E.

Getting a feat that adds a point here a couple times might get you up to 18 or eventually even 20, but the point is you don't have to do it to stay competitive.

I guess if this actually reaches a playtest stage, we'll know better. It is something to keep in mind, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like the idea of it, in that it gives you the option of customizing your subclass to fit whatever class flavor you want, without sacrificing the core progression of your base class. The fact that you can still get your spell levels, or extra attack, etc. on time, for example, while picking up some features from other classes is nice. Compared to RAW multiclassing, I would characterize this as giving you more "horizontal" flexibility, by effectively giving everybody 11 new subclasses they can choose from.

You sacrifice "vertical" flexibility, though, in that you don't have as much freedom to adjust the proportions of each class in your build: you have a primary and secondary, and they progress in a fixed way. For example, if your primary class is fighter or rogue, and you want to get a little bit of wizard, your only choice in this system is to take, essentially, what amounts to 8 levels in the RAW level system. That makes you sort of a 1/3 caster, like an eldritch knight or arcane trickster; and that's the only way to do it. If you want a more even split between martial and caster, you can't do it.

As a player of an arcane trickster who chose to multiclass into wizard because I wanted more than the 1/3 caster that AT gives you on its own, this system doesn't address my issue with the existing system, which is that there's no way to sort of titrate your build to accelerate your magical progression just a little at the cost of just a little delay in your primary class's progression: you either wind up just flat out delaying your magical progression by dipping caster, or you have to invest a lot of levels, thus paying a lot on your primary class side, to get a little bit faster progression of your casting. What I would have liked to see is a way that you can take one or two wizard levels as an EK or AT, and have this allow you to gain 2nd / 3rd level spells a little bit sooner than a single classed EK/AT, while delaying your fighter/rogue features by 1-2 levels. However, this is arguably a bit of a corner case, since EK and AT are the only single classed (full or part) casters that don't have their own spell list.

As far as balance goes, my chief concern with your multiclassing system is that, having collapsed multiple levels into "level 1" of a class, you're getting two levels worth of stuff for each level in your secondary class, but giving up only one level worth of stuff by trading away the corresponding subclass features. If it were "first set of subclass features" vs "level 1 of another class" in the vanilla level chart that would be more balanced, but the collapsed class chart skews things in favor of muticlassing, it seems to me.

Yeah, I get your point. I thought about it today while writing the formal rules for Subclass Awards and Multiclassing.

It occurred to me in normal 5E, you could start as a Fighter, and at some point pick up levels of Wizard, and end up Fighter 5/ Wizard 15 if you developed a greater desire for spells over combat. You have the choice to switch your focus, so to say.

In L10 currently, once you start as Fighter you are locked into the class. Sure, you could get up to 4th level Wizard spells, but there is no way to shift "base" class to Wizard.

I definitely see this as a flaw in the system and want to find a way to change that.

As far as the balance goes, you are gaining two traditional levels for two traditional levels. The issue really, is classes tend to be front loaded heavily with features at levels 1 and 2, so in L10 you gain a lot for a single dip into another class. I've been aware of that and the only possible solution would be to actually create the subclass tables for the core 12 classes as subclasses. If I have time later, I'll try to post a sample so you can see exactly what I mean.