Casters and Multiclassing

[Ratskinner]

It didn't punish you much at all until the XP progression leveled out. And by then, the demi-humans were already hitting level limits, and getting pounded that way. At the earlier levels, the exponential progression meant that you could be a 5/5 fighter mage while your human allies were at 6th fighter or 6th mage. You never got more than 2 behind, except perhaps fighter/mage compared to single class thief--or of course if you triple classed. It was usually a good trade--and when it wasn't it was the level caps that did it in (e.g. halfling fighter/thief).

IIRC, in 1e the level caps were a double-whammy, because you still had to pay for your non-progressing class. I don't recall how that worked either way in 2e. Also, at low levels, the lower hp usually meant you were quite vulnerable in your "heaviest" role, especially since you stayed at first level almost twice as long as the rest of the party. Later, you were always behind your compatriots, by a level or two of your already low hp. I saw a lot of Fighter/Mages that ended up being mages who wore armor and gained levels slowly because they were generally too scared to enter the front line and behave Fighterishly. I'm not sure I recall any Mage/Thieves surviving long enough to be relevant. Fighter/thieves had armor issues, and either solution hurt. Of course, as with a lot of Old School stuff, YMMV quite a bit.

Sometimes I'd like to see a version that had 3E/4E unified, cleaned up, balanced classes, but with a 1E progression and multiclassing (i.e. a single XP chart that you had to use in the 1E way to progress, but wide open on choices, and each choice being valuable). One of the nice things about such a system is that you can go as wide or deep as the group wants to go. If you want to grab three levels of cleric instead of your next level of fighter, it might be worth it, even if you are only getting the power of a young 3rd level cleric in the bargain. You do need to work out how hit points and other such things will stack, but that is not insurmountable.

I'm not sure what you're describing here.

 

[Falling Icicle]

They should just do what 4e did and not have caster level at all. That would solve most of the multiclassing caster problems of 3.x, and it would also solve the problems with scrolls and other magic items that contain spells.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not sure what you're describing here.

There's more to it, but the core of it would be something like this:

1. Class xp chart requires around double XP per level. Let's use the 1E fighter chart, but start it at 1000 for convenience--2nd level at 1,000 XP, 3rd at 2,000, 4th at 4,000, 5th at 8,000, etc. We will probably gradually drop the factor per level from x2 to something like 1.3 over the higher levels to keep the totals from getting completely ridiculous (and to subtly encourage pushing that main class), but whatever it is, it isn't the 3E 1,000, 3,000, 6,000, 10,000, 15,000, etc. (And why we don't use 100 as the starting place and scale XP awards to match, I don't know, except old traditions of getting 13 XP per some piddlying moster. But I digress. ) Point being that at some moderate level achievement, tacking on another 1st level class for a measly 1K XP starts to be tempting.
2. However, this chart applies to every class and any monkeying with the per level factor is done intentionally for level pacing, not a balancing mechanism (i.e. not the 1E hodge-podge of numbers, varying scales, etc.)
3. There are no racial or otherwise multiclassing restrictions. You can be bebopping along taking your fighter levels or wizard levels or a mix of both. Then you suddenly decide to take a level in thief. If the DM and/or the group doesn't object, you pay your 1k XP and add 1st level thief to your abilities. This isn't stacking on top like 3E. So the fact that you only get 1st level thief stuff for your measly 1k XP is fine. And it really isn't setting you back much from your next level in fighter or wizard or whatever your main thing is.

The obvious question, of course, is wouldn't everyone multiclass in this sytem? In some campaigns, they would. If you've got one of those campaigns where you all sneak around a lot, then having some trailing abilities as rogue or ranger or thief are cheap for what you get. Likewise, if you've got only 3 or 4 players, you want each character to have some "backup" ability. OTOH, a large group, or one heavily oriented towards maximizing group specialization and covering each other with teamwork, might prefer to multiclass very little or even not at all. And that's all good.

The main purpose of such a system is to let each group adapt to the specialization or generalization that they want, instead of the game imposing one. This has been the problem with all versions of multiclassing thus far in D&D, that however well they work or don't work for given playstyles, they strongly bias the game towards a set ratio of specialization/generalization. This is why, among other things, that size of the party has matter so much.

A side effect of such a system (feature for some, bug for others) is that you can't get that 20th level wizard stuff until you get 20 levels in wizard. However, taking levels in other things do not stop you from eventually getting 20 levels in wizard--theoretically. They just make it take longer, which might mean that you don't crack that total before the end of the campaign. Whatever else this means, it means that the character that specializes more than the other characters in the party, gets access to things that the rest don't have (at least not right now). Assuming of course, a well-designed system where you cannot, for example, get all the "fighter stuff" by taking a bunch of rogue/ranger/paladin/barbarian levels. Some of the 4E design would be useful here.

 

[GM Dave]

The trouble that I have with the mix of caster and non-caster or two different styles of caster has to due with reward for dedication.

If I was a player that struggled with lower armour, lower hit points, and made it through great trials to the upper levels then I would feel that I earned the ability to do Wish or Meteor Storm.

I would be really angry if some other player that had been a fighter for 16 levels turned around and cried 'look what I can do' and was able to do a Meteor Storm as good as I could do it.

The reverse would be true if I was a fighter and suddenly saw a Wizard pulling off Path of Blood or similar feat of weapon skill without having put in all the levels of dedication to achieve that special maneouver.

Some abilities should be 'earned' through dint of play.

In 4e, you could spend most of your life dedicated to one way of life and then wake-up one morning to trade your Epic tier ability for some other classes Epic tier ability. You never knew how to cast magic as Heroic or Paragon Fighter but suddenly you can cast a Cleric level 27 Sunburst?

Sometimes the seeking of 'game balance' in abilities takes away from the reward of struggle.

This is one of the problems that can occur in Multi-classing where people should be rewarded for their dedication to a class rather than allowing people to cherry pick what they want from each list.

 

[Kynn]

I still like most of the Fourth Edition hybrid and multi-class rules. They offer enough flexibility within fair limitations. I can see some lightening of the feat requirements for both of those options, but generally they worked very well at the table.

I would have liked 4e multiclassing a lot better if you'd been able to swap powers freely without requiring extra feats to be spent. Sort of like you can do with themes and some racial powers without needing to burn feats.

 

[Tallifer]

I would have liked 4e multiclassing a lot better if you'd been able to swap powers freely without requiring extra feats to be spent. Sort of like you can do with themes and some racial powers without needing to burn feats.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Or at least just require one power-swap feat to swap out powers ever after.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If I was a player that struggled with lower armour, lower hit points, and made it through great trials to the upper levels then I would feel that I earned the ability to do Wish or Meteor Storm.

I would be really angry if some other player that had been a fighter for 16 levels turned around and cried 'look what I can do' and was able to do a Meteor Storm as good as I could do it.

Thing is, there have been pretty generous starting-above-1st-level rules for quite a while now. Nothing stops someone from playing a fighter through it's sweet spot, then bringing in a wizard (with a modest but custom-chosen kit of magic items), when casters start working better.

Conversely, campaigns often end prematurely, so you could languish in your 'earning levels' in campaign after campaign.

Much better to just have every class fully-realized ASAP.

 

[Kzach]

Or you could do it as Options instead of Power increases.

If spells weren't scaled by level multipliers BUT spellcaster levels still mattered, ie. if you took a level in spellcaster you could choose from the basic spell lists and your Magic Missile would be much the same as the 10th-level mage's in terms of numerical power... but his could go around corners, target specific items or body-parts, critically hit, etc. because his additional spellcaster levels allowed him to increase his OPTIONS with the spells that he acquired.

 

[Oni]

I think the flattened power curve will address some of the issues with 3e style multi-classing. If there is only a small difference in the potency of spells for the levels they are able to cast and in difficulty to resist them then it will smooth out some of the issue. The problem with spellcasters with 3e multi-classing was that just missing 2 or 3 levels impacted your ability to affect enemies so severely it made you wonder why bother at all. If the primary difference is in the number of spells and which you have access to rather than efficacy then I think it will probably work fine (I'm hoping anyway).

 

[Li Shenron]

Personally I'm pretty tired by multiclassing, so I'm not going to be bothered much by whatever solution the 5e designers will come up with.

But I want to point out that a truly good solution should take into account 3 different cases, and work fairly well for all of them:

- (roughly) even-split classes, which is used by those who want a balanced hybrid concept i.e. the classic fighter/wizard
- mostly spellcaster, dipping into another class e.g. wizard with a small amount of fighting abilities which create good synergy with her spells
- mostly non-caster, dipping into a spellcasting class to gain some minor but useful abilities

These are seen from the point of view of the spellcasting class only, since this is what the thread is about, so the point is that if the multiclassing system is really good (for casters, at least), it should make reasonably good characters whether they have most, about half, or only a few levels in a spellcasting class.