D&D 5E How should multiclassing be handled in 5E?

[darjr]

I like the idea as far as making multiclass characters effective but in story terms I'm not sure how it would work out. Should a 15th level fighter who takes a single level in wizard be a better spell caster than a 1st level wizard, or even a 5th level wizard because of their character level. The same goes for a spell caster crossing into fighter. Should their martial damage output be based on character level.

To be honest it has always been the martial/spell caster mix that has always been problematic but as RangerWickett points out this may no longer be a big issue

good point. Though the class level limit about what abilities they could take would solve some of that. And the flatter math also means that the 'bump' doesn't have to be as drastic as it would otherwise be.

In story terms I'd liken it to a more experienced person being better able to learn new things and use those new things more effectively. Especially up at 15th level or so.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Should a 15th level fighter who takes a single level in wizard be a better spell caster than a 1st level wizard, or even a 5th level wizard because of their character level. The same goes for a spell caster crossing into fighter. Should their martial damage output be based on character level.

IMHO, no.

A 15th level fighter who takes a level of Wiz should be nor better or worse at spellcasting than a 1st level Wizard, and vice versa. In this sense, a level system should function like a skills-based system.

 

[MoonSong]

I'd like the bulk of character benefits to be packaged into choices that resemble 4e's feats, and then only grant a small essential handful of benefits by class (keeping classes few). Then, bundle a bunch of feats to make someone, say, a paladin, or a druid, or an illusionist. Nobody can change their class, but you can take any feat you like, as long as you meet the prerequisites. This eliminates all problems related to multiclassing, and goes a great distance to balance classes. It also allows an easy selection of feat bundles for players that want a simpler game, and an easy way for players who like to tinker to build their own "class."

MMM, I don't think that would work even for single classed characters, the whole idea of "want a sorcerer? well take a wizard and give it the sorcerer package, then wait 10 level before you get an atual sorcerer, meanwhile be happy playing your wizard" sounds unappealing (double because to me sorcerers are supossed to be even more thematically diverse than wizards), the same for a paladin, or a ranger, or a druid, and "change classes three times before you get a Bard" could have been cool fourty years ago, but I think I'm been spoiled for three editions allowing bards from first level.

Also it suffers from the same problem @RangerWickett above said, it doesn't allow to shift the focuss of your character on an organic way. Your PC is basically set in stone before you ever begin play.

 

[am181d]

Should a 15th level fighter who takes a single level in wizard be a better spell caster than a 1st level wizard, or even a 5th level wizard because of their character level.

Yes.

I'd either want to see him cast spells as a 1st level Wizard with a 15th level Caster Level OR (thinking about things from a 4e perspective) select a single 15th level daily Wizard arcane power.

This makes sense to me from a story perspective (Epic Heroes are Epic) and from a game perspective (all valid character options are competitive).

 

[mattcolville]

How would you prefer to see multiclassing handled in 5E, if it is allowed at all?

I would not allow it. I don't see any need, and usually when I encounter a player who wants to multiclass it's because he wants all the strengths of two different classes without any of the downside. No, you can't be a character who's as powerful with spells as a wizard, and as good with a sword as a fighter. Pick one.

 

[Obryn]

I generally don't like multiclassing at all. The 4e feat-based method sufficiently weakens it for my tastes. (I hate the Hybrid thing, however.)

The 1e method is fine, too, but it integrates pretty well with the rest of the system to make it work, particularly the geometric xp charts.

I just don't want to see 3.x multiclassing again... It's too much like point buy for D&D, for my tastes.

My preference is for single classes that can take the place of common multiclasses, maybe combined with feats to represent dabbling or a "dip".

-O

 

[Sadrik]

Personally I hate tracking XP, so trying to balance character options by, like, splitting XP between two classes, would not work for me. I'd like to be able to say, "You're a 10th level fighter. He's a ranger 3/rogue 2/wizard 5. You're balanced."

Not sure if this was in reference to my post but I will respond as such. I think the 1e/2e method of multi classing and splitting xp can be annoying. However I never encountered a problem with it in my years of playing 1e and 2e. That said it could be streamlined and modernized. Splitting xp has to be done in a simple way, like in 1/2 or in 1/3. Another possiblity is to simple create an already accounted for xp chart for double and triple classed characters.

Xp should also be player based not character based. The player gets X xp for being glued to the chair and doing stuff. Xp should not be there as a resource to lose, level drain and magic item creation.

So I can sympathize with the idea of not using xp and hating it, I also see no way around it. Dnd is stuck with it and really it is hopefully a good implementation of xp rules where everyone can enjoy them again.

I don't see the appeal of parallel advancement multiclassing a la demi-humans in 2E, or the appeal of "You decided to stop casting spells and start swinging a sword? You can never learn more spells ever!" dual classing a la humans in 2E. Can you explain what about those appeal to you?

So when I said I wanted those styles of multi classing available I did not mean literally verbatim with all of the wacky level limits and everything else that was weird about the multi classing in 1e/2e. I would like to have a character start out as a fighter/magic-user it was one of the two big let downs of 3e multi classing that I saw as needed in the game. They played lip service to this issue in the 3.0 dmg by getting 2 1/2 levels at level 1. They did not carry those rules into 3.5. The other let down was the way characters did not scale right a 10/10 fighter/wizard was not a good enough level 20 character.

I also just read your post and I think we are not that far apart on what we think multi-classing should be like. I would also like to see a level 10 character be the same as a 3/2/5 character. The two 3e let downs I mentioned above have to be accounted for though. And remarkably we are near identical on our opinion of prestige classes.

 

[keterys]

I don't think there's sufficient interest or intent in the D&D Next team to make the classes sufficiently modular that a level of each is equally useful, and that's pretty much a requirement to use 3e multiclassing to my mind. It's basically simplified point-based characters instead of class-based characters, except that certain levels seem to be worth highly varying values. To put in numeric terms, a 3e 12th level wizard could pick up a level of, say, cleric and get 5 points worth of abilities, or take a 13th level wizard for 169 points worth of stuff. I think Next will blunt that effect, but dodge it? Seems unlikely.

I don't want a system where powergamers feel they need to hen pick stupid combinations of classes to maximize effect, and roleplayers who organically grow their character with this class and that class quickly get less and less effective compared to their level.

I would find it interesting if decide I was playing an elven bladesinger and every level I choose to take some cool spell or some cool fighting style, and both were pretty valid choices, but that also doesn't seem to be the way things are going.

I suspect we'll get a variety of options, each with their own strengths, and their own weaknesses. Maybe we'll even have tables where each PC does their own method.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I generally don't like multiclassing at all. The 4e feat-based method sufficiently weakens it for my tastes. (I hate the Hybrid thing, however.)

The 1e method is fine, too, but it integrates pretty well with the rest of the system to make it work, particularly the geometric xp charts.

I just don't want to see 3.x multiclassing again... It's too much like point buy for D&D, for my tastes.

My preference is for single classes that can take the place of common multiclasses, maybe combined with feats to represent dabbling or a "dip".

-O

Pretty much this. 3.x multiclassing was a horrid, broken mess, IMO and IME. The further Next stays from that model, the better off it will be.

I might be okay with AD&D style multiclassing, if they did it well. And I like the 4e style feat system, but with fewer restrictions and less opportunity cost (i.e. excessive feat count).

 

[RHGreen]

All classes should be split into 2 parts by default. They should be designed that way from the very beginning. I would make one half a Primary Part and the other half a Secondary Part.

Primary has the greatest effect on the character and the secondary has a lesser effect. This way you can put really class important abilities in both, super powerful class abilities in the primary, and more specialized abilities in the secondary.

1. E.g. Taking Primary in Fighter gives you all the general wide arching abilities for that class, and then taking secondary in Fighter specializes that character in, for example, archery.
2. E.g. Taking Primary in Wizard gives you all the general wide arching abilities for that class, and then taking secondary in Fighter gives a few focused abilities from that class. For example - Archery = Spell Archer.

As you can see taking a secondary the same as your Primary is like specializing because a secondary is more limited and focused. Taking a secondary in a class different to your Primary is like, due to the more limited focused nature, is like dabbling in a second class.

As you go up in level you may get additional Secondary abilities from classes. You can't get a Primary. A Primary is the foundation of your character and means the design can stop exploitation. You can further invest in your Primary class, get more rounded in your secondary class, or branch out and become more jack of all trades in a further different class.

While we are on this subject, one thing I don't like about D&D next, and it is something I didn't like about 4th, is I hate this - "You get this thing at 3rd level, you get this thing at 5th level." I suppose it is in 3rd as well to an extent. I want to be able to choose what I get at what level. This can work if the abilities are scalable.