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

[TwoSix]

The difference between 10/10 and 19/19 is pretty vast. IMHO.

(10/10) - (19/19) = 0.

You just got mathed, yo.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Old-school multiclassing (here, using your example, based on demi-humans) wouldn't be "insanely overpowered" unless you removed all the restrictions.

Which people did, of course. And, it was only "not insanely overpowered" in the case where you rolled up your MC'd non-/demi-human and played it through to the end of the campaign, advancing slowly only as a thief after bumping the limits on your other class or two, while the humans became Arch-Mages and Grandmaster of Flowers and 'bards' with 23 HD and the like.

But this is comparing apples to oranges. The 1e "system" for multiclassing for humans was different. And these systems don't work for 5e for several reasons.

The 5e system is conceptually close to the 1e 'character with two classes' option, just less restrictive & involved.

That's what I'm getting at- it's apples and oranges. You can't take the good and ignore the bad.

Except, of course, that's exactly what people did back in the day. The just ignored the level limits.

These systems are just too different. If you're going to do it, you need much larger penalties than you're contemplating, because the default multiclass system (which some already feel is overpowered) is dramatically less powerful than what you are proposing.

The current MCing system, and the basics of 5e, like Proficiency, though, do point to ways a gestalt or hybrid system could be made to work. It might hash together class abilities, for instance, average HD size, and use character level for ASIs, etc...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ancalagon]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] are those 1e values? They were higher in 2e I believe...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ancalagon]

Furthermore, I was trying to replace those dubious restrictions by 2 more "reliable" factors: stripping the subclasses and by the fact that a level penalty may, in some ways, hurt more.

I concede that it may not be enough mind you...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would further say tables that did this were likely to have many more demi-humans than a table that played by the RAW. Which goes to my idea, earlier, that if something is overly attractive because of its power, it will likely be overly used.

Sure, the idea is clearly valid. To further quibble with how it was 'back in the day,' though (because I'm old, and compulsive about that sorta thing), no one was really playing 'by the RAW,' (and not just because the idea was minted in the 3e era) - the closest you could come to that is a DM who teased out the non-contradictory portions of the PH & DMG rules and stuck to what he felt was the closest-to-the-letter-of-the-rules interpretations that remotely worked. Every game was different back in the day, especially the ones that purported to be 'by the book.'

I was giving my opinion on the original proposal, which doesn't quite work out.

Fair 'nuff. Sorry about my compulsive quibbling...

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] are those 1e values? They were higher in 2e I believe...

Yes & yes. One of the first signs that 2e was going to be crazy-broken...

Furthermore, I was trying to replace those dubious restrictions by 2 more "reliable" factors: stripping the subclasses and by the fact that a level penalty may, in some ways, hurt more.

I concede that it may not be enough mind you...

There was nothing dubious about the restrictiveness of class/level limits, they were about as subtle as a sledge-hammer.

Stripping of sub-class is highly variable by class, though, since sub-class is more significant to some than others. And the -1 level is virtually trivial under BA.

Even-advancement under the 5e optional MC rules really isn't too bad. It can get you something similar to the classic MC characters. Your spellcasting is going to max out at 5th level spells, which fits the best non-human magic-user in 1e, the elf, topping out at 11th. But your proficiency will keep pace through 20th, which fits unlimited advancement as a Thief in 1e. Really, the Bladesinger or EK isn't a bad way to do a 1e MC'd elf, either. Throw in the Criminal background and you've got a fighter/magic-user/thief, or at least a fair suggestion of one.

But to really get all the way there, you'd need some sort of gestalt/hybrid system, which more or less fillets each class and lets you paste the results together...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Oh, I agree. Like I am fond of saying, NO ONE PLAYS WITH WEAPON MODIFICATION VS. ARMOR CLASS, except you of course.

I didn't know anyone else back in the day who went for it consistently, but I have met some who avow to have done so.

Heck, I'm sure there were groups running the 1e DMG rules for grappling ... bless their hearts.

I finally ditched those, but I did use the segment-by-segment resolution in a version that had various unarmed (martial-arts like) attacks that you picked with weapon proficiency. Actually, my variants caused combats to drop into surprise-segment-like resolution quite often....

It's exceptionally hard to reason back from the RAW in the books to how people played, because ... well, so many rules were buried, confusing, contradictory, and, quite honestly, were viewed as suggestions.

Exactly. There are things we can say about the rules and the form of the game back in the day, but they don't necessarily map strongly to how the game was actually played - and, conversely, our experiences with the game back in the day don't say much about the actual rules at the time.

 

[TwoSix]

Look, if it's fun for you, give it a shot, and tell us how it works! I can be wrong (well, excepting the fact that I'm never wrong, but still).

Seriously, I don't think a -1 level penalty is enough for multiclassing (even with the archetype restrictions). I would look at what Bold Italic put forward, and use that as a baseline; even his model is arguably OP, but you can always adjust from there.

BoldItalic hasn't posted in this thread, did you mean another poster? Bacon Bits, perhaps?

Granted, if we're advocating for other previously posted ideas, I still like mine, but I'm probably biased by my own awesomeness.