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

Now that you've got me thinking about simple options again, how about this one.

1) Must meet the multiclassing ability score requirements of both classes (this system assumes only two classes)
2) Gain the better HD, weapons and armor proficiencies (alternatively, gain the weaker weapon and armor proficiencies, plus the multiclass version from the better class--more satisfying but requires special exceptions to deal with certain situations)
3) Gain the highest number of skills--select from combined list
4) Choose one class, and gain the saving throw proficiencies (alternatively--take your choice of good and not-so-good save from the classes options, but that's less simple)
5) Gain any other proficiencies, such as tools, musical instruments, languages, specific bonus skills, etc
6) Gain levels and HD at same XP as everyone else, and use the same proficiency bonus
7) Gain all class features from each class.
8) Do not gain duplicate features, such as extra attack, channel divinity (see standard multiclassing rules), or ASIs at the same level
9) Gain spell slots from each class and add together -- do not use the multiclass spellcasting table from the PHB. Learn and prepare spells from each class separately.
10) For purposes of class features gained or advanced by class level, your class level may not be the same as your character level. To determine your class level (applies to both classes), you simply advance as normal, except that you don't gain a class level increase at character levels 2, 7, 12, and 17, though you still gain your HD and proficiency bonus increases.

This means you will max out at 16th level, where you gain an ASI. This is a good level because it means that nobody loses more than one ASI. A fighter/rogue actually gets 7, as much as a single class fighter. 16th level also gives very little else beyond what 15th level gives (no spell slots, for instance). Some classes gain a spell prepared, and/or a point of some sort, and the barbarian gains an extra point of damage when raging. Other than that, it's pretty much the ASI that you are getting, which really helps solve the problem of how to keep those in line with where they need to be. Also, my gut tells me that 16th level is probably the right balance spot.

The only major problem I can see is that weapon damage scaling from multiple classes needs some sort of rule to prevent it from over-stacking. It's probably fine to let a fighter rogue have 2 attacks and 16th level sneak attack, but 3 attacks is too much. The same goes for the other 11th level damage bumps that all primary weapon using classes get. You really shouldn't be able to stack those. If I could fix that problem, I might have a more workable simple system for my needs.

I worked up the Pact Magic idea, which I think I will use going forward. It ensures that a Warlock/??? has no more spell slots than a single classed character, but they have the Pact Magic slots which are better than the slots they would otherwise have. The tables are a bit odd, because at first glance it seems as though you are losing spell slots at certain levels, but that it not the case. You're just trading a weaker (long rest) slot for a better (short rest, possibly higher level) slot.

When combining pact magic slots with non-pact magic slots, the two may be used interchangeably to cast any spells you know or have prepared. However, the pact magic slots replace a long rest slot whose level is equal to that of the pact magic slot. If you do not have a long rest slot of that level, it replaces a slot of the highest spell level that is lower than the level of the pact magic slot. For example, if you have a 5th level pact magic slot but do not have 5th level long rest slots, then the pact magic slot would replace a 4th level long rest slot; if you don’t have a 4th level long rest slot it would replace a 3rd level slot, and so on and so forth.

One thing I noticed in OD&D's XP progression relative to hit points: It seems like the hit point total is close to, but just *barely* ahead of the lower hit die class of equivalent XP.

That said, I still need to do a bit more testing, particularly with clerics, which have decent hit point and XP progression. I'm not sure how this would be reflected in a 5e hybrid class. Maybe with just using the higher hit die like I've seen you and others mention.

Hemlock said:

Interesting. The big difference then is that my sorcerer/warlocks are getting only five ASIs by 20th level, whereas your hybrids get ten ASIs by then. That seems significant from a powergaming perspective--I'd probably be eager to play a sorcerer/warlock under those conditions. Invest a couple of ASIs in boosting Charisma (4th and 8th), a couple more in upgrading Light Armor proficiency to Heavy Armor proficiency, maybe throw in some Lucky and Spell Sniper at 12th level.

Click to expand...

I remember now why I decided against changing ASIs beyond the first into a +1. I just reread this (finally catching up on the thread) and while it's technically accurate, it's also a little misleading.

If you are playing a campaign to 710,000 xp it's true, but at least for me the only way it would happen is if I ran a campaign where all PCs were following these rules. If you're using the epic boon rules in the DMG, single-classed characters would each have 35 epic boons by that point.

It's far more likely for a campaign of mine to end somewhere around 355,000 xp, which is 20th level for single classed characters. As such, PCs following these rules will only reach 15/15 (6 ASIs) or 12/12/12 (9 ASIs, but they get 3 of those at 300,000 xp). Fighters or rogues will obviously get more, but that's a part of their thing.

That was actually a large part of my rationale for allowing double/triple ASIs. It helps MAD concepts, and ultimately such characters aren't getting much more than their single-classed counterparts (well, technically triple classed characters do but it's in the end game, where the game is less concerned with characters breaking the system).

Fanaelialae said:

I remember now why I decided against changing ASIs beyond the first into a +1. I just reread this (finally catching up on the thread) and while it's technically accurate, it's also a little misleading.

If you are playing a campaign to 710,000 xp it's true, but at least for me the only way it would happen is if I ran a campaign where all PCs were following these rules. If you're using the epic boon rules in the DMG, single-classed characters would each have 35 epic boons by that point.

It's far more likely for a campaign of mine to end somewhere around 355,000 xp, which is 20th level for single classed characters. As such, PCs following these rules will only reach 15/15 (6 ASIs) or 12/12/12 (9 ASIs, but they get 3 of those at 300,000 xp). Fighters or rogues will obviously get more, but that's a part of their thing.

That was actually a large part of my rationale for allowing double/triple ASIs. It helps MAD concepts, and ultimately such characters aren't getting much more than their single-classed counterparts (well, technically triple classed characters do but it's in the end game, where the game is less concerned with characters breaking the system).

Click to expand...

At 300,000 XP, single-classed characters have 4 ASIs, double-classed characters have 6 ASIs, and triple-classed characters have 9 ASIs. A short time later, single-classed characters gain a 5th ASI.

To me that seems a bit out of whack. I like the idea of multiclassed characters being more MAD with fewer ASIs to cover their MADness. It's the price they pay for multiclassing.

YMMV obviously. Fundamentally the difference between restricting ASIs (my way) and restricting spell slots (your way) is an aesthetic choice determined largely by which multiclass combinations you find cool. At least we agree that you shouldn't be able to have both.

ObSteven Brust:

“The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is as follows: All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what's cool. And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in 'em, 'cause that's cool. Guys who like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool, are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas about what's cool.

“The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff.”

Which set of multiclassing rules a DM prefers will depend upon whether he thinks forcing fighter/mages to choose between Int and Str is more cool than preventing mage/clerics from accumulating lots of low-level spell slots. I happen to prefer the stat pressure. I think it makes multi-classing a little bit less of a no-brainer. If I were playing at your table, I'd probably view multiclassing as a dominant choice.

Any melee / bow using class and rogue looks pretty amazing.

As an example:
Barbarian / Rogue (16 str, 14 dex, 14 con)

Level 1 (when raging):
1d8 + 1d6 + 5 dmg on a hit

Level 2
Same damage but can get advanatege any time for sneak attack

Level 3
1d8 + 2d6 + 5 sneak attack

Level 4
1d8 + 2d6 + 6 sneak attack

Level 5
1d8+6 x2 + 3d6 sneak attack and reaction half damage on top of half damage on everything.

If the lower hp bothers you then change it to a fighter/rogue and use a bow?

Hemlock said:

At 300,000 XP, single-classed characters have 4 ASIs, double-classed characters have 6 ASIs, and triple-classed characters have 9 ASIs. A short time later, single-classed characters gain a 5th ASI.

To me that seems a bit out of whack. I like the idea of multiclassed characters being more MAD with fewer ASIs to cover their MADness. It's the price they pay for multiclassing.

YMMV obviously. Fundamentally the difference between restricting ASIs (my way) and restricting spell slots (your way) is an aesthetic choice determined largely by which multiclass combinations you find cool. At least we agree that you shouldn't be able to have both.

ObSteven Brust:

“The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is as follows: All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what's cool. And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in 'em, 'cause that's cool. Guys who like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool, are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas about what's cool.

“The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff.”

Which set of multiclassing rules a DM prefers will depend upon whether he thinks forcing fighter/mages to choose between Int and Str is more cool than preventing mage/clerics from accumulating lots of low-level spell slots. I happen to prefer the stat pressure. I think it makes multi-classing a little bit less of a no-brainer. If I were playing at your table, I'd probably view multiclassing as a dominant choice.

Click to expand...

Steven Brust is one of my favorite authors. And I agree. In my case at least, it goes beyond what is cool, so this is my thinking on the matter.

Imagine three characters. Eins is a normal PHB character, Zwei is an AD&D-style multiclass with two classes, and Drei is an AD&D multiclass with three classes.

Under my rules, at 2,700 xp Eins is level 4 and gets his first ASI. Zwei gets his first two ASIs at 5,400 xp, when Eins is more than halfway to 5th level. Drei gets his first three ASIs at 8,100 xp, when Eins is about 1/3rd of the way to 6th level.

At 34,000 xp Eins is level 8 and gets his second ASI. Zwei gets his third and fourth ASIs at 68,000 xp, shortly after Eins reaches 10th level. Drei gets his fourth, fifth, and sixth ASIs at 102,000 xp, shortly after Eins hits 12th level (and gets his third ASI).

At 100,000 xp Eins is level 12 and (as previously mentioned) gets his third ASI. Zwei will get his fifth and sixth ASIs at 200,000 xp, shortly after Eins hits 16th level (and gets his fourth ASI). Drei will get his seventh, eighth, and ninth ASIs at 300,000 xp, just before Eins reaches 19th level (and gets his fifth ASI).

From there on, Zwei and Drei don't get any more ASIs.

The biggest advantage that Zwei and Drei have over Eins is in early gains. However, unless the player really forces a SAD combo (bard/sorcerer/warlock) much of that will be spent on increasing their relevant ability score (such as for a monk/warlock/wizard). If it's a choice between making certain that the former isn't too powerful and that the latter remains playable, I would rather make sure that MAD concepts are viable ones. I think a player having to abandon a cool concept because they'll never have the stats to make is work is a failure. The only reason I even introduced this option (aside from nostalgia) was to make certain concepts more viable.

Now lets look at spell slots under your system. Assume that Eins, Zwei and Drei are full casters in all of their classes.

At 4th level Eins has 4/3 slots. At that time Zwei has 8/4, and Drei has 12/6 slots.
At 8th level Eins has 4/3/3/2 slots. At that time Zwei has 8/6/6 and Drei has 12/9/6 slots.
At 12th level Eins has 4/3/3/3/2/1 slots. At that time Zwei has 8/6/6/6/2 and Drei has 12/9/9/3 slots.
At 16th level Eins has 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots. At that time Zwei has 8/6/6/6/4/2 and Drei has 12/9/9/9/6 slots.
At 19th level Eins has 4/3/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots. At that time Zwei has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2 and Drei has 12/9/9/9/6/3 slots.

Eins has higher level spells, but Zwei and Drei have an absurd number of slots.

Another thing I don't like about this approach is that it's unsynergistic. Because you can only use spells from a given class with slots from that same class, you lose out on a lot of the fun of playing such a character. My character can choose to be sorcerer OR a paladin in a given round, but he can't use his subtle spell metamagic on his branding smite because those are from separate classes (I believe you stated upthread that such a combo wouldn't be allowed in your game).

My friend ran a gestalt game with such rules, and while the game itself was fun the character mechanics weren't. The other player and I were constantly thinking of cool things our characters could do and then going "Oh wait. That won't work because those features aren't from the same class." That aspect wasn't at all enjoyable.

Fanaelialae said:

Steven Brust is one of my favorite authors. And I agree. In my case at least, it goes beyond what is cool, so this is my thinking on the matter.

*snip*

The biggest advantage that Zwei and Drei have over Eins is in early gains. However, unless the player really forces a SAD combo (bard/sorcerer/warlock) much of that will be spent on increasing their relevant ability score (such as for a monk/warlock/wizard). If it's a choice between making certain that the former isn't too powerful and that the latter remains playable, I would rather make sure that MAD concepts are viable ones. I think a player having to abandon a cool concept because they'll never have the stats to make is work is a failure. The only reason I even introduced this option (aside from nostalgia) was to make certain concepts more viable.

*snip*

Another thing I don't like about this approach is that it's unsynergistic. Because you can only use spells from a given class with slots from that same class, you lose out on a lot of the fun of playing such a character. My character can choose to be sorcerer OR a paladin in a given round, but he can't use his subtle spell metamagic on his branding smite because those are from separate classes (I believe you stated upthread that such a combo wouldn't be allowed in your game).

My friend ran a gestalt game with such rules, and while the game itself was fun the character mechanics weren't. The other player and I were constantly thinking of cool things our characters could do and then going "Oh wait. That won't work because those features aren't from the same class." That aspect wasn't at all enjoyable.

Click to expand...

But that is precisely a judgment about what is cool. You think that Quickening a wizard spell or making it Careful is cool, because you think cross-class synergies are cool. I think it's cool for sorcerer magic to be fundamentally different from wizard magic, such that metamagic is intrinsic to sorcerer spells (which are part of you) and not something you can do on the fly to wizard spells (which are done with precomputed formulas).

You think it's cool for Barbarian/Monk/Warlocks to have higher stats and be less MAD than the equivalent single-classed or PHB-multiclassed characters; I find it cool for the opposite to be true and for fighter/mages to be slightly worse at either fightering or maging than the equivalent single-classed characters, so that there are more interesting dilemmas instead of multiclassing being a pure win. Enabling Barbarian/Monk/Warlocks to max all of their stats simultaneously is a non-goal for me because I don't think that's cool.

I find it cool for Drei to have 4/3/3/3/2/1, 4/3/3/3/2/1, and 4/3/3/3/2/1 slots in exchange for not having 4/3/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots. Or rather, I find it sufficiently cool that preventing it isn't a priority for me. (I think it's actually not a very powerful or interesting combination and my powergamer instincts say "Meh.") You find it cool for that not to be possible. But you also like the synergies, so you find the idea of having only 4/3/3/3/2/1 slots cool, because to you that 6th level slot is better and more interesting than the 6th level slot an ordinary e.g. Wizard would have, so in your mind Drei is still getting value out of his three classes because he can e.g. Contingency Death Ward.

It is entirely about what you think is cool.

Hemlock said:

But that is precisely a judgment about what is cool. You think that Quickening a wizard spell or making it Careful is cool, because you think cross-class synergies are cool. I think it's cool for sorcerer magic to be fundamentally different from wizard magic, such that metamagic is intrinsic to sorcerer spells (which are part of you) and not something you can do on the fly to wizard spells (which are done with precomputed formulas).

You think it's cool for Barbarian/Monk/Warlocks to have higher stats and be less MAD than the equivalent single-classed or PHB-multiclassed characters; I find it cool for the opposite to be true and for fighter/mages to be slightly worse at either fightering or maging than the equivalent single-classed characters, so that there are more interesting dilemmas instead of multiclassing being a pure win. Enabling Barbarian/Monk/Warlocks to max all of their stats simultaneously is a non-goal for me because I don't think that's cool.

I find it cool for Drei to have 4/3/3/3/2/1, 4/3/3/3/2/1, and 4/3/3/3/2/1 slots in exchange for not having 4/3/3/3/3/2/1/1/1 slots. Or rather, I find it sufficiently cool that preventing it isn't a priority for me. (I think it's actually not a very powerful or interesting combination and my powergamer instincts say "Meh.") You find it cool for that not to be possible. But you also like the synergies, so you find the idea of having only 4/3/3/3/2/1 slots cool, because to you that 6th level slot is better and more interesting than the 6th level slot an ordinary e.g. Wizard would have, so in your mind Drei is still getting value out of his three classes because he can e.g. Contingency Death Ward.

It is entirely about what you think is cool.

Click to expand...

I agree that what you and I think is cool is a very significant factor, but it's not the only significant factor (at least for me). I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote my last post, so I failed to clearly convey that point.

Personally, I think it would be awesome to give casters slots from all of their classes. I'm sure it would make my Cl/Wiz player very happy, and I like it when my players are happy.

I just don't think it would be balanced. I want someone who chooses to play a 5e-multiclass Cl 11 / Wiz 9 to have made a viable choice, even if played next to an AD&D-multiclass Cl 15 / Wiz 15. Under my system I believe that I have achieved that, because the 5e PC has 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 slots vs the AD&D PC's 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0. IMO, if the AD&D system PC effectively has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2/2/0, then the 5e PC is a joke by comparison.

Another way to illustrate the difference is using spell points.

The 5e PC would have 133 SP.
My AD&D PC would have 94 SP.
Your AD&D PC would have 188 SP total (albeit split into two pools).

To go back to my example from my last post, at 4th level Eins has 17 SP, Zwei has 28 SP total (split between two pools), and Drei has 42 SP total (split across three pools).
At 8th level Eins has 44 SP, Zwei has 64 total SP, and Drei has 81 total SP.
At 12th level Eins has 73 SP, Zwei has 114 total SP, and Drei also has 114 total SP.
At 16th level Eins has 94 SP, Zwei has 146 total SP, and Drei has 192 total SP.
At 19th level Eins has 123 SP, Zwei has 166 total SP, and Drei has 219 total SP.

I just can't see how that could possibly be balanced. Note that I'm not suggesting that you change your system, I'm simply explaining why I didn't go the same route.


Conversely, I don't think that the ASIs are a balance issue (or at least not a serious issue unless perhaps you are playing with powergamers).



As you can see, for the majority of these three characters' careers there isn't much more difference between them than if one of them had picked variant human. Slightly more in the case of the triple classed guy, but you'd really have to optimize hard to keep him from being MAD (definitely not a case of the player simply wanting to play a fighter/mage/thief). The odds are that he will be spending most of them getting his ability scores into a functional range, not on feats or even maxed stats. IMO, it doesn't have much potential for craziness until characters are in the third of fourth tier (by which point crazy is the new normal). As such, I don't consider it an issue. Feats are nice, but outside the hands of an optimizer they're really not OP in my experience. I actually offer my player a free feat or magic item if they write a background for their character, and I've yet to see it upset things (and most of them always write a background). Given the number of TPKs I racked up in the past year (the dice can be a cruel mistress) I don't see the free feat creating any imbalance whatsoever.

Again, YMMV, as I know from our previous discussions that your players enjoy optimizing their characters and party, so I can see how this might be problematic in your game. Again, just sharing my POV.

There's an impact from using different baselines: you're measuring relative to a Cleric 11/Wizard 9, and I'm measuring relative to a Wizard 20 or Cleric 1/Wizard 19. Again, an aesthetic judgment as to which one seems more plausible/common/archetypical and worth supporting. I find Cleric 11/Wizard 9 very uncool and don't care at all if it becomes irrelevant as long as Wizard 20 is still viable; you apparently find it cool enough that you want to keep it in your game even if that makes Wizard 20 relatively stronger than any multiclass split. (And there is nothing you can do to make Cleric 11/Wizard 9 as good a Wizard 20.)

Bearing that difference in mind...

Fanaelialae said:

I just don't think it would be balanced. I want someone who chooses to play a 5e-multiclass Cl 11 / Wiz 9 to have made a viable choice, even if played next to an AD&D-multiclass Cl 15 / Wiz 15. Under my system I believe that I have achieved that, because the 5e PC has 4/3/3/3/3/2/2/1/1 slots vs the AD&D PC's 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0. IMO, if the AD&D system PC effectively has 8/6/6/6/4/2/2/2/0, then the 5e PC is a joke by comparison.

Click to expand...

There's a pretty huge difference between 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0 + 4/3/3/3/2/1/1/1/0 and 8/6/6/6/4/2/2/2/0. Lumping the spell slots from both classes together would let the Cl 15 / Wiz 15 spend his cleric slots on wizard spells like Maze and Feeblemind. Getting to cast Maze x2 probably still isn't as good as getting to cast Shapechange x1 (there's a pretty huge jump in power at 9th level spells), but it's a lot better than only getting to cast Maze x1 is and having to take the Cleric 8 spell from a completely different list (of which Holy Aura and Antimagic Field are probably the best options) with a different set of spells-prepared pressures on it.

Lumping the spells together is sort of like allowing spell slots to be shuffled between PCs, which is obviously more powerful for a party than having everyone cast only their own spells.

Another way to illustrate the difference is using spell points.

The 5e PC would have 133 SP.
My AD&D PC would have 94 SP.
Your AD&D PC would have 188 SP total (albeit split into two pools).

Click to expand...

Precisely. Not only is 94 + 94 less efficient than 188, but it's also 94 from a more limited spell list with no 9th level spells, and fewer synergies. (E.g. if you're an Evoker 15, 94 of those spell points do not benefit in any way from your Empowered Evocations, and the 94 points that DO benefit are the same spell points that are competing with your Walls of Force.) Trust me when I say my powergamer instincts don't jump for joy at the thought of having 94 + 94 spell points but no access to 9th level spells. They do kind of jump for joy at the thought of having an extra feat though, and being 90% of the way there towards having three extra feats, particularly if I were playing a SAD combination like Sorcerer/Warlock.

Again, YMMV, as I know from our previous discussions that your players enjoy optimizing their characters and party, so I can see how this might be problematic in your game. Again, just sharing my POV.

Click to expand...

Sure. I think we all understand the effects of our various choices, and the reason we went down different roads. Both of us have nerfed the combination that our own respective powergamer instincts tell us is exciting and a bit too powerful; we've left alone the combinations that seem kind of meh.