D&D 5E Crazy idea: 2nd ed multiclassing in 5e

[Ancalagon]

So

in 2nd ed, multiclassing was quite different than it is today. A fighter/mage was almost as powerfull as a mage or a fighter of that level. This was "balanced out" via 2 ways. First, this option was limited to only certain races (basically, not for humans) and was also level-capped. I think we can all agree that this is a terrible idea. Also, on average, they were one level behind (or 2 level behinds for triple class), although with the caveat that because different classes had different XP requirements this was not an absolute rule (so for example, in a party where the average single class member was level 8, the multi-class character would be level 7/7). HP was averaged out between each class, so a level 7/7 fighter mage would have an average HP at the midpoint between a fighter and a mage at level 7.

Because being one level behind wasn't "enough" to balance, *and* probably because "balancing" via race restriction/level cap was a terrible idea, 3e (and 5e) went in a completely different direction, an "additive" process where a level 8 character could be a level 8 fighter, a level 4/4 fighter/mage, 1/7 rogue/sorcerer etc etc... This was a reasonable approach, but not everyone is 100% happy with it, and part of me misses those 2nd ed style multi-class characters...

So I've been thinking. First, In 5e, being one level behind matters more than it did in 2nd ed, because it's not just about getting those sweet sweet level 3 spells. Almost every classes gets something at each level, and there are also the ASI and the proficiency bonuses to consider. So being behind 1 level in 5e "hurts" more than in 2nd ed. But I think it's not enough. So what if you didn't have access to your subclass? A fighter mage wouldn't be a "chamption/abjurer" - he would only get the benefits of being a plain fighter and a plain mage? Would this be enough to "balance" a 2nd ed style multi class character in 5e?

So to recap, my proposal is:

A: a 2-class multiclass character would be one level behind (XP cost to reach level 5/5 is the same as reaching level 6)
B: HP would be averaged between the 2 class value, as per 2nd ed.
(edit: A level 5/5 character has 5 hitdice, *not* 10, ie the level 5/5 fighter mage does NOT have 5d10+5d6, rather 5D10+5d6/2)
C: Sub-class benefits would not be available.
D: Skill selection would be taken from the combined list of both class list of skills, but number of skills would not be doubled, but rather be the best of either (so if class A gives you 2 skills, and class B gives you 3 skills, pick 3 skills)
E: ASI would be based on the overall character level - so a level 4/4 fighter/mage has 1 ASI, not 2!

edit: Added, E, and also note that it's A and B and C, not A or B or C...

Would this work?

There are some caveats here

1: I don't think this works for triple class
2: Some class have more loaded in their subclasses than others
3: I have no clue what to do with the warlock, which effectively has a subclass made of 2 sub-sub classes
4: I don't think that arcane:arcane should be allowed, heck maybe limit it to a single spell-casting class
5: *Maybe* limit it to the 4 "core" classes (fighter rogue cleric wizard)? (edit: probably could add sorcerer to that list)
6: This may make some subclasses invalid.

edit 2: added clarification HP, caveat #6

 

[Gadget]

AD&D multi-class characters advanced more slowly as well, due to having to divide their XP between two classes, so they were often fighter 7/ wizard 6 and such. Due to the different XP charts in AD&D, this usually meant that they were only level or two behind the rest of the party (at least before level limits hit), but you were still behind and advancing slower than the rest of your party.

The difficult thing about modern D&D is that there are so many bells and whistles hanging on the class chassis these days. How would feats/attribute advancements work. Even at a level behind, you are still getting more of those than your single classed companions. I suppose taking the xp and dividing it equally between the two classes would not work due to the way the XP scales in 5e. You could theoretically 'catch up' to the others due to the xp requirement of the lower levels being so small. I almost think something like the AD&D duel-classing rules would be more balanced, but I can't remember all the details of how that worked off hand. I do remember you had to "start over" with your new class and only be that class until you 'caught up' with your other class, then you could choose which one to advance and alternate between the two.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Would this work?

The biggest issue I see here is that since ASIs are class features, you're still getting double ASIs. A multiclassed Fighter/Wizard would not only dominate an Eldritch Knight in terms of spells known, but it would also be less MAD too! A sorcerer/warlock would hit Cha 20 long before a regular warlock did, and would have far more spells to boot. Etc.

My personal gut feel is that these multiclassing rules don't force enough hard choices on the player. Giving up a subclass in order to gain another full class doesn't seem like a huge dilemma.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This was "balanced out" via 2 ways. First, this option was limited to only certain races (basically, not for humans)

Not a limitation, at all, since those races were generally 'better' than humans, anyway.

and was also level-capped.

That was the actual limitation. It was often ignored as a house-rule, resulting in campaigns dominate by non/demi-humans throughout, rather than only through single-digit levels....

I think we can all agree that this is a terrible idea.

As terrible as LFQW. Which has kinda made a comeback. Kinda.

Also, on average, they were one level behind ......First, In 5e, being one level behind matters more than it did in 2nd ed

Actually, thanks to BA, it arguably matters /less/. At least, you'll hear that argument a lot.

So what if you didn't have access to your subclass? A fighter mage wouldn't be a "chamption/abjurer" - he would only get the benefits of being a plain fighter and a plain mage?

It's a thought. But, really, in a sense we already have MCing something like that, in the case of the EK and AT. Instead of a fighter or rogue sub-class, you get wizard-esq casting. That could be a model for more integrated, non-MCing MCing that might feel more like the classic game version, without being whacktastic-crazy-broken.

A: a 2-class multiclass character would be one level behind (XP cost to reach level 5/5 is the same as reaching level 6)

Wildly OP.

B: HP would be averaged between the 2 class value, as per 2nd ed

Just fine, really.

C: Sub-class benefits would not be available.

Too little to balance 'A.' Really, nothing could balance A. Then again, it's not like balance is that important in 5e. If the DM is already successfully imposing balance on a party with a Champion 11 and a Wizard 11 he should have little additional difficulty in imposing balance on Fighter/Wizard 10/10.

D: Skill selection would be taken from the combined list of both class list of skills, but number of skills would not be doubled, but rather be the best of either (so if class A gives you 2 skills, and class B gives you 3 skills, pick 3 skills)

Not horrifying.

E: ASI would be based on the overall character level - so a level 4/4 fighter/mage has 1 ASI, not 2!

Certainly. How it should be in 5e MCing, anyway (ie a 2/2, character-level 4, PC should get an ASI, rather than waiting until 4/4 to suddenly get two).

1: I don't think this works for triple class

The obvious inference would be 'just put them 2 levels back instead of 1.' Wouldn't be any better, but it'd be obvious.

 

[TwoSix]

Assuming my next game I run is close to standard 5e, I'm going to offer AD&D style multiclassing as this:

1) Pick 2 classes.
2) Get the better Hit Dice and proficiencies from combining both.
3) Pick 2 of the saves available from the combinations offered.
4) Maintain spells separately from each class. You can't cast class A's spells with class B's slots.
5) All other class features stack, except Extra Attack and ASIs. At any level where you would get 2 ASIs, you must take an ASI and a feat, not 2 ASIs or 2 feats.
6) A single class character's proficiency bonus starts at +3, and scales to +7. A multiclass character's proficiency bonus starts at +0, and scales to +4. (As a general rule, checks for proficient characters are considered 5 DC easier than a normal check as a house rule, so there's still a benefit to proficiency even with a +0 bonus.)

 

[Ancalagon]

The biggest issue I see here is that since ASIs are class features, you're still getting double ASIs. A multiclassed Fighter/Wizard would not only dominate an Eldritch Knight in terms of spells known, but it would also be less MAD too! A sorcerer/warlock would hit Cha 20 long before a regular warlock did, and would have far more spells to boot. Etc.

My personal gut feel is that these multiclassing rules don't force enough hard choices on the player. Giving up a subclass in order to gain another full class doesn't seem like a huge dilemma.

Oh - the ASI would definitely be based on character level, not class level - not double ASI of course! I should have mentioned that.
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] I should mention that A B C D is not a list of options - it's A and B and C...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not a limitation, at all, since those races were generally 'better' than humans, anyway.

It would be an interesting limitation in 5E though, since humans are generally "better" than other races.

Unless 5E humans got to dual-class. ;-) Best of both worlds.

Anyway, even in AD&D, the races limitation was real, because that limited the available multiclass combinations. I don't remember the details but I'm pretty sure that dwarves had more restrictive multiclassing options than elves, and half-elves had the most. If you wanted to be a fighter/mage/cleric for maximum versatility I think you had to be a half-elf instead of an elf, for example.

Actually, thanks to BA, it arguably matters /less/. At least, you'll hear that argument a lot.

It matters less in 5E, but not because of Bounded Accuracy. It's mostly because 5E classes are front-loaded with goodies (e.g. Fighter gets two attacks at level 5 instead of level 13), and because 5E spells are kind of bland and weak. In AD&D, getting access to 5th level spells like Magic Jar, Ironskin and Domination represented a quantum leap in power, and each level after that brought further goodies; the closest thing 5E has to that kind of quantum leap is Moon Druids at level 2 and Bards/Druids/Wizards at level 7 if and only if your DM lets you use Polymorph to turn into Giant Apes/Tyrannosaurs/etc. I get the feeling that Polymorphing into dinosaurs is more of a theorycrafting/Internet thing than something that happens in actual play though (I don't think I've ever seen anyone try it).

 

[Ancalagon]

Anyway, even in AD&D, the races limitation was real, because that limited the available multiclass combinations. I don't remember the details but I'm pretty sure that dwarves had more restrictive multiclassing options than elves, and half-elves had the most. If you wanted to be a fighter/mage/cleric for maximum versatility I think you had to be a half-elf instead of an elf, for example.

I believe you are correct, but that goes against the spirit of 5e that any race can be any class....

 

[TwoSix]

I get the feeling that Polymorphing into dinosaurs is more of a theorycrafting/Internet thing than something that happens in actual play though (I don't think I've ever seen anyone try it).

It's real, and it's spectacular.

It's a winning combination to get you through the late single digit levels (especially when Twinned), but the low AC starts to put a real damper on it by 10th-11th, when enemies start reliably hitting their AC if they don't roll 1s. I probably should have used mage armor.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh - the ASI would definitely be based on character level, not class level - not double ASI of course! I should have mentioned that.
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] I should mention that A B C D is not a list of options - it's A and B and C...

Okay, then.

A smaller issue is that you're getting double fighting styles, double Expertise, etc. But that's not as big of a deal as double ASIs.