How important is multi-classing, and why?

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see some form of multiclassing appear in the game, if for nothing else but to stop class proliferation for every concept and combination imaginable.

I think in the most ideal situation, I'd like to see class be a "starting package" that you can customize via feats or talents later on. So you might start with the Fighter starting package and then later on pick up some rogue abilities at a cost of giving up some of your later fighter talents.

If Next goes with a strict leveling to multiclassing, I think I'd prefer to see 1E/2E's method - where you pick up multiclassing at 1st level and advance in all classes simultaneously. Most especially, trying to pick up more classes was more expensive in that you leveled slower for having such a broad range of abilities. A Fighter/Magic-User/Thief/Cleric can basically do a little bit of everything, and that should cost someone dearly.

 

[Aldarc]

3E multiclassing had the problem that a character gaining a level could immediately gain the class abilities that a first level character of that class spent all of his formative years learning -- and further, to prevent abuses from "dipping" into a class, some key abilities were deferred to later levels, a problem not present in 4E.

Some compromise between the two systems ought to be possible. Maybe having a certain class as your background gives you advantages over somebody who picks up the class as an adult? With that approach, you can give a character who begins play all of the proper iconic abilities without having to worry about those abilities being poached by somebody who decides to dabble in that class later in his career.

Another possibility is to simply spread out the benefits of the class's 1st level throughout his levels. For example, let's say at first level the rogue picks only 4 skills (assumes some sort of simplified kill system), but as he increases in levels, he can pick up another skill at level 3, 8, 13, and 18, which brings him to approximately 8 skills, in addition to any other he may pick up with other abilities. While the fighter may only start out with light armor, but then picks up heavier armor training at level 5 or 10. And someone who multiclasses into a fighter could only gain the benefit of light armor training and maybe one martial weapon or martial weapon group (e.g. 1-hand swords, 2-hand swords, etc.).

 

[Li Shenron]

Is multi-classing something that needs to be included, and if so how flexible or powerful should it be?

After years of experience, I don't think it is necessary to have it in the game.

Single-class characters should allow some flexibility for differentiation. 3ed had the perfect system at hand: Feats. Unfortunately characters had too few feats to differentiate significantly (notice how giving some more feats than normal was such a widespread house rule). Furthermore many 3ed classes had fixed abilities at certain levels, where instead they could have had a pool of class-specific abilities to choose from, like the Rogue had but only at higher levels and again too few to choose from and not frequently enough.

In my personal experience, multiclassing is not really needed to create a character concept: if you have enough flexibility in feats/class features and also in skills and spells, YOU CAN create every character concept you can think about, eventually with the help of a make-up of flavor.

In my experience players use multiclassing only because they are undecided on what role they want their character to have, and want to be good at 2 roles or 3 instead of just accepting one role (or worse, they just want to min-max). They want to be good fighters AND wizards at the same time. I am quite old-fashioned and I think a roleplay game is a game of roles, so pick one at a time. An adventuring party should be capable of handling any non-special adventure with just 3 roles, even if that means 1-2 basic roles are missing from the party (meaning that no single role should be absolutely mandatory to handle an average adventure), so this should not be an excuse for everyone to pretend to dip into Rogue or Fighter classes.

Of course 5e should cater to everyone, so multiclassing will certainly be included. Also, after all it's better to have a single decent multiclassing rule than dozens of additional classes which essentially offer nothing new but a mix of the core classes. Both of these for me are inferior design choices than having a small bunch of core classes with good flexibility.

I would prefer at least if the multiclassing rule would be moved from PHB to DMG... I've seen it all the time in 3ed players writing up multiclass PCs (except beginners and spellcasters) and then complain that the game didn't offer good reasons to stay single class. Ban multiclassing from the PHB and you have your reason

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think 5E needs some multiclassing, but have no idea how to do it.

I think mid-career changes should be possible, and taking only 5% of a second class should be possible, too.

Also multi-multi classing.

But I know that is hard.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Multiclassing is absolutely imperative. I never played a single-class character-- not once-- until 3rd edition, and in 3rd edition I never stayed single-class for long. To contrast with the other posters in this thread, however, I would say that 3.X's multiclassing system was actually it's biggest failure. It encouraged players to build characters with no coherent narrative for their class abilities and did not, under any circumstances, allow you to play a character that balanced its abilities across multiple classes without becoming completely ineffective.

I've been trying for years to fix 3.X multiclassing, and this is the closest I've ever gotten.

The only good thing I have to say about 3.X multiclassing is that it's still better than 4e's multiclassing-- which is the key component that turned me off from the system altogether. Hybrid multiclassing is almost a solution, but that came years later and still doesn't work right.

I want a system that works like AD&D. Or like the Classic D&D multiclassing rules in Orcs of Thar. Or something else entirely, as long as it works.

 

[Raith5]

I dont think MC is needed in the basic/core rules but MC needs to be the advanced/expanded set of rules.

I have a thing for MC archetypes and have played MC characters in all versions of D&D (except pathfinder) where MC options were available. I thought 3rd ed was the worst (I had a fighter/cleric whose healing power was never really enough to be helpful). I think 4th ed hybrids have been by far the best, the archetype I was looking for is realised and useful at the table.

I think hybrids, MC for a feat and retraining allow a really wide range of characters. These are positive aspects of 4th ed which can be overlooked.

 

[enrious]

I dont think MC is needed in the basic/core rules but MC needs to be the advanced/expanded set of rules.

I could go along with this.

 

[Tallifer]

For me, multi-classing is not necessary for roleplaying reasons, to play some strange conceit which only exists in anime or twilight.

Rather for me, multi-classing is often necessary to fill the roles in a party. For example, sometimes no one is willing to play a support class, so one or more of the party must multi-class into something which will provide some healing or some enhancement magic (buffs).

In one recent campaign, the wizard player left the group, so my warlord had to multi-class into wizard, so that the party had someone to do rituals, cast control spells and handle arcane lore.

 

[Li Shenron]

Rather for me, multi-classing is often necessary to fill the roles in a party. For example, sometimes no one is willing to play a support class, so one or more of the party must multi-class into something which will provide some healing or some enhancement magic (buffs).

In one recent campaign, the wizard player left the group, so my warlord had to multi-class into wizard, so that the party had someone to do rituals, cast control spells and handle arcane lore.

I think this problem should be adressed more deeply: the game should be playable even if some "roles" are missing from the party. I would want to see those words I highlighted in your post disappear from future incarnations of D&D

If no one is willing to play a support class, then the game should support the DM in adjusting an adventure so that it doesn't need that class.

In many ways it's possible to do it already, the problem is that the vast majority of published adventures assume you have the iconic roles covered. But the rules of the game (in any edition) don't really prevent the DM to make adventures that are even suitable to an all-fighters group, or all-wizards or all-rogues and so on.

Particularly, not having a healer in the party is considered a dread situation, but the truth is that it is not. Healing HP simply translates as having more HP, there is some tactical difference in that you can spread the healing on a need-basis, but if there is no healer in the party you can just have less encounters per day. Healing special conditions (you know like blindness, curses etc.) works differently, but again unless the conditions are permanent or lead to death if untreated (in which case the DM can just avoid them) not being able to heal them on the spot does not make the game unplayable, and it actually even make it more interesting.

(edit)

Similarly, if your party doesn't have a Rogue, the DM should just be careful not to drop traps which are too deadly or which can only be overcome by a Rogue disabling them. That doesn't mean you cannot have traps in your game...

The key is the idea (which is quite fundamental to me) that in a game of D&D there should always be more than a way to skin a cat. Players should be encouraged to play a game where their party cannot be capable at everything, so that they will be required to think.

And the last resort can always be to find an NPC who can do it for you.

 

[delericho]

Hmm...

Perhaps the game shouldn't have "multi-classing" as such, but instead should allow a character to take a certain number of cross-class powers? So, the Wizard could take some "item crafting" powers from the Artifice source, or pick up some "combat expertise" powers from the Martial source, without the need to explicitly multi-class. (Or, of course, he could take both.)

And, of course, if the character picks up enough cross-class powers from another class, perhaps he should eventually become eligible to retrain his underlying class, so that the "Wizard with lots of Fighter" eventually becomes a "Fighter with lots of Wizard"?