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

[airwalkrr]

D&DN is supposed to be modular right? (That shipped hasn't sailed has it?) So why can't it have several possible schemes for multiclassing? The DM can choose which ones he wants to allow.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Laying it on the table: I will be buying 5Ed's Core rulebooks, regardless. However, I can say in no uncertain terms that multiclassing is a big deal for me. If I had to guess, I'd say 75%+ of my D&D PCs had more than one class, dating back to my second PC back in 1977. And to date, I've felt the 3.X incarnation of the MC rules has been my favorite, bar none.

So if I think the new MC rules don't support my style of play, it will be a deal-baker for me. I'll stop buying after that initial purchase.

To be 100% clear, that does not mean that if 3.X MC isn't the default, a core option or included at all, that I'll ditch the game. I mean that if the initial release of 5Ed doesn't have some kind of fairly robust multiclassing rules that let me create characters as I envision them, THAT will be the end.










...at least until 6th is released.

 

[Li Shenron]

I agree with you, to a certain extent. But a 10th-level wizard who takes one level of fighter is hardly considered a professional fighter. He might use those skills in his profession, but they will not be his primary means of getting things done. Likewise, I have certain advantages to being knowledgeable in automotive mechanics (I save myself money for going to the mechanic for simple things like changing batteries, oil changes, filter changes and the like, plus you'd be surprised how sometimes knowing how a car works helps you come up with novel solutions in a laboratory), history (science has a certain sense of ethics which must be maintained and historical knowledge helps reinforce those ethics), and knowing at least basic conversational ability in several languages helps me communicate with my peers from other countries. So they all add something to my value as a scientist. I might not be able to make a living teaching Russian or Spanish or working as an auto mechanic, but it certainly enriches my value as a scientist.

Yes absolutely! That's the way I would like it to work I am totally fine with a Fighter who takes a level of Wizard and gets the first level of Wizard, which is going to round out or complement his capabilities especially out of combat.

I just meant to say that before 3e players usually chose to be e.g. a Fighter/Wizard (or Elf) because they wanted to be both things, they didn't want to be a Fighter because they had no spells and didn't want to be just a Wizard because they also wanted to fight.

In 3ed it became quite different, and it may seem like a paradox but the fact that multiclassing with half levels of a martial class and half levels of a spellcaster did not work at all, actually eliminated the "I multiclass because I want to be good at everything" temptation from some players. (Unfortunately other players found better ways to achieve that...)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Meh...I did it anyway if the PC concept demanded it.

 

[airwalkrr]

Seriously though! Why can't we all have our cake and eat it too? D&DN could have a rules module for 3e-style multiclassing, a "classic" style 1e/2e multiclassing (or gestalt or hybrid) module, and a 4e-style multiclass feat module. The default rule would be a traditional OD&D single class-based system, but DMs could allow whichever multiclassing option(s) they like. If you want to play an OD&D style game, don't use the modules. If you liked 1e/2e style multiclassing, use that module. If you like 'em all, use 'em all! Etc. Why should we be thinking about pigeon-holing ourselves here into one system when the whole modular style was created so that we can do any of the above? We have a brand new edition here to work with. If they build the system with modular multiclassing systems in mind as an option, they can find a way to work in all of them in some form or fashion.

 

[Li Shenron]

Seriously though! Why can't we all have our cake and eat it too? D&DN could have a rules module for 3e-style multiclassing, a "classic" style 1e/2e multiclassing (or gestalt or hybrid) module, and a 4e-style multiclass feat module. The default rule would be a traditional OD&D single class-based system, but DMs could allow whichever multiclassing option(s) they like. If you want to play an OD&D style game, don't use the modules. If you liked 1e/2e style multiclassing, use that module. If you like 'em all, use 'em all! Etc. Why should we be thinking about pigeon-holing ourselves here into one system when the whole modular style was created so that we can do any of the above? We have a brand new edition here to work with. If they build the system with modular multiclassing systems in mind as an option, they can find a way to work in all of them in some form or fashion.

Yes, this would definitely be the absolute best.

 

[Ferghis]

I'd love to eliminate the need for multiclassing altogether by providing enough customization within classes, feats, specialties, reflavoring, and maybe some sort of graduating class (prestige class, paragon path, something story-driven) to allow for anyone's character concept to be fully realized. In my experience, multiclassing for any other reason than to flesh out a character idea is to me fishing for some sort of mechanical advantage and leads to bad places.

This would be fantastic, but how to do it?

This is how I would do it. Break the process down to a more modular system.

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.

You're right to highlight that, because I omitted the fact that I would give a few feats at character creation, enough to make your "arcanist" a real sorcerer from the get go. This would resolve your objection entirely, and in a very balanced way, since a very large number of feats would be available to anyone, and the rogue couldn't complain that the assassin was too powerful due to this or that benefit, since the benefits were available to both characters. In other words, making the benefits compete with each other openly immediately highlights the ones that are too powerful (since they would be selected much more often), and allows for swift nerfing.

Iron Kingdoms does something like this. It has a long list of abilities and a short one of skills which it then packages into classes, which grant some abilities to start out with, and then allow picking from a pool of abilities as you gain experience). It also allows characters to pick two classes to start out with, but that's not my point here. My point is that, after picking an archetype and a race, the class you select is just a bundle of abilities, skills, spells and equipment, very few of which are specifically unique to one class. If we could break class benefits down to some building blocks, we could bundle them back up into classes, or allow players to multiclass by selecting any block they qualify for. This would make multiclassing much less problematic.

 

[jsaving]

Laying it on the table: I will be buying 5Ed's Core rulebooks, regardless. However, I can say in no uncertain terms that multiclassing is a big deal for me. If I had to guess, I'd say 75%+ of my D&D PCs had more than one class, dating back to my second PC back in 1977. And to date, I've felt the 3.X incarnation of the MC rules has been my favorite, bar none.

Well said -- I feel the same way.

What I absolutely *don't* want from 5th edition is the designers telling me that they'll support only the kind of multiclassing I "ought" to like. If you as a designer don't want me to be able to evenly mix two classes because you feel I won't fit one of your pre-defined roles, I'm sorry, but that isn't your job. Nor is it your job to tell me I can't do a light splash because the only legitimate way to multiclass is to keep the class levels as close to equal as possible.

What *is* your job is to provide balanced rules that enable me to make any of those choices in a non-game-breaking way, and then let me decide what mix of classes best suits my vision of my character.

The inevitable counter you hear at your FLGS is, do you really want to go back to the bad old days when a plethora of poorly-designed splatbooks enabled you to create a multiclassed "supercharacter" through (in)judicious splashing? My answer would be, absolutely not. But the answer to this problem isn't arbitrarily restricting what you can do, but curtailing the poor design work and terrible quality control that so often typified 3e class writeups. And there are encouraging signs that WotC plans to keep a much tighter lid on poorly overseen splatbook-style explosions of classes/races/feats in the future, which is -- at least in my mind -- a very good thing.

 

[airwalkrr]

And there are encouraging signs that WotC plans to keep a much tighter lid on poorly overseen splatbook-style explosions of classes/races/feats in the future, which is -- at least in my mind -- a very good thing.

I was with you up until this. I have absolutely zero confidence that WotC or any other gaming company for that matter has a vested interest in not releasing powerful additions to the game. What you call "poorly overseen" I see as "intentionally engineered." It is how the gaming companies keep you buying new product. If they can make you feel like you need the latest product so that your character can "keep up with the times" as it were, then they are doing their job an holding your interest.

What I personally do not want to see is wasted splat book space on useless weak sauce material that isn't even remotely interesting. PF released a new product recently. The Animal Beatiary, as I recall. A whole book devoted to animal companions and their ilk. It is difficult enough to keep a player's attention when he is waiting for three other characters and NPCs to take their turns. But when they have to wait for three other characters plus all their pets, minions, summoned creatures, companions and familiars to take their turns, every combat turns into a series of smoke breaks and off-topic conversation. I don't mind a little power creep. I don't mind a revamping of the game (3.5 and Essentials were both good moves for the game IMHO). But do I want a whole book about plant monsters or the demiplane of gnome-kin or other such garbage that is just a waste of shelf space or an interruption to the game? Heck no.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I was with you up until this. I have absolutely zero confidence that WotC or any other gaming company for that matter has a vested interest in not releasing powerful additions to the game. What you call "poorly overseen" I see as "intentionally engineered." It is how the gaming companies keep you buying new product. If they can make you feel like you need the latest product so that your character can "keep up with the times" as it were, then they are doing their job an holding your interest.

What I personally do not want to see is wasted splat book space on useless weak sauce material that isn't even remotely interesting. PF released a new product recently. The Animal Beatiary, as I recall. A whole book devoted to animal companions and their ilk. It is difficult enough to keep a player's attention when he is waiting for three other characters and NPCs to take their turns. But when they have to wait for three other characters plus all their pets, minions, summoned creatures, companions and familiars to take their turns, every combat turns into a series of smoke breaks and off-topic conversation. I don't mind a little power creep. I don't mind a revamping of the game (3.5 and Essentials were both good moves for the game IMHO). But do I want a whole book about plant monsters or the demiplane of gnome-kin or other such garbage that is just a waste of shelf space or an interruption to the game? Heck no.

I have a sneaking suspicion that WoTC will not have much of a splat mill. The model may very well be run the rpg as a loss leader, mostly support it via DDI and make money off novels, crpgs, boardgames and collectable mini and card game. this could keep the overhead of running the D&D department low and profitable so that Hasbo does not park the property because it need continuing capital injections from HQ.