D&D 5E Multi-class support in 5E

[Disparue]

Instead of multi-classing in the 3E sense, I think we may see multi-classing either supported by feats, or a system similar to hybrids in 4E, or perhaps both. Multi-classing in the 3E vein is actually limited to that edition (as far as I know), and 2E shared more in common with hybrid classes from 4E.

How do you think multi-classing will be supported?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'd like to see something similar to AD&D multiclassing (like 3.X Gestalt or 4e Hybrid) supported with a limited feat multiclassing mechanic.

 

[GM Dave]

I was just thinking on this and I had a different idea.

What if you treated races, classes, and themes all like layers that you could apply on top of each other.

I got the idea by looking at the article on the new Elemental Chaos and thinking of how things like Stormlord adds a group of features to a character.

I then thought that races do the same thing.

Classes do the same thing.

The only difference with classes is that they level up 'every' level. They are considered in 4e to be picked at the start and not available for change.

What I am thinking would be that things like your typical Wizard would be broken into Themes of different strengths.

You could get Apprentice Wizard as a Wizard choice available at level 1. This would allow access to a set of abilities or features that can 'grow' with the character but remain at the Apprentice Wizard capability.

A player with Apprentice Wizard at a later point would be given the choice to add Journeyman Wizard. The Journeyman Wizard would have the requirement of Apprentice Wizard to select but might be one of a group of choices a player could make like Apprentice Pyromancer and Apprentice Summoner. Each would be a package of features.

This would be similar to the idea of how paragon and epic work in 4e but be more of a multiclass approach.

A player could develop their 'main' class choice or simply pick up the Apprentice Level in several different classes. Players characters would be balanced as each Apprentice, Journeyman, Master would have a selection of features and growth built into them.

Races could also have several levels of choice like classes. This would be for the player that wants to play what they think is the typical straight 'elf' or 'dwarf' or by mixing in a bit of something else.

 

[mkill]

I'd experiment with multiclass as the default.

Split classes into paths (archer ranger, melee ranger, beastmaster ranger; illusionist wizard, necromancer wizard, conjurer wizard...) and let everyone pick two paths, one from your main class and one from a second class. If you don't want to multiclass, just select two paths from the same class.

At first level, you get something from both paths. After that, something from the primary path every even level and something from the secondary path every odd level.

Makes more flexible characters, and you only need to fill the progression table with stuff at every second level.

 

[Zireael]

I like the idea of the paths, however, it might be a tad too complicated for some people. It might make 5e, but not in core, in "splats".

 

[mkill]

I like the idea of the paths, however, it might be a tad too complicated for some people. It might make 5e, but not in core, in "splats".

I think it's still a lot easier than hybrids, 3E multiclassing, or dual classing. (The jury is still out whether it's easier than AD&D multiclass)...

All you need is a table:

Level - what you get
1 - ability A
2 - ability B
4 - ability C
6 - ability D

For the secondary path, you just get everything a level later (except the first). It's a bit tricky to design abilities, because you have to make sure they don't create some weird stacking effect. But I think it's dead easy in play. For a basic set, there could be paths where ABCD are fixed, without any choices for the player.

Note that "ability" can be anything - class feature, fixed bonus, feat, 4E-style power (at-will, encounter, daily, utility), spell slot...

The big advantage is that you could have a pure fighter, a fighter/wizard, a wizard/fighter or a pure wizard, and they're reasonably balanced because they progress in the same way.

Note that a Fighter/Wizard is a Fighter (full plate, sword etc) who picks up some spells, while the Wizard/Fighter is a Wizard (robe, spell book) who picks up some combat training.

 

[Aenghus]

I would like single classed PCs to be viable in the next edition, they were marginalised in 3x in many cases, . I would prefer to avoid multilclassing being compulsory. Single classed pcs are iconic and simpler for new players to just grab and play.

Any multiclassing needs to avoid the pitfalls of 3x, due to classes being too front-loaded and lacking desirable high level features. Make it an actual choice with pros and cons for continuing in the same class or gaining abilties from another class.

I think the easiest way to do this is to add high level abilities to the core classes, desirable ones so that there is a reward for perservering in a single class. Then multiclassing could grant a wider breadth of abilities, rather than just more power over a single classed PC.

 

[AlioTheFool]

I was just thinking on this and I had a different idea.

What if you treated races, classes, and themes all like layers that you could apply on top of each other.

I got the idea by looking at the article on the new Elemental Chaos and thinking of how things like Stormlord adds a group of features to a character.

I then thought that races do the same thing.

Classes do the same thing.

The only difference with classes is that they level up 'every' level. They are considered in 4e to be picked at the start and not available for change.

What I am thinking would be that things like your typical Wizard would be broken into Themes of different strengths.

You could get Apprentice Wizard as a Wizard choice available at level 1. This would allow access to a set of abilities or features that can 'grow' with the character but remain at the Apprentice Wizard capability.

A player with Apprentice Wizard at a later point would be given the choice to add Journeyman Wizard. The Journeyman Wizard would have the requirement of Apprentice Wizard to select but might be one of a group of choices a player could make like Apprentice Pyromancer and Apprentice Summoner. Each would be a package of features.

This would be similar to the idea of how paragon and epic work in 4e but be more of a multiclass approach.

A player could develop their 'main' class choice or simply pick up the Apprentice Level in several different classes. Players characters would be balanced as each Apprentice, Journeyman, Master would have a selection of features and growth built into them.

Races could also have several levels of choice like classes. This would be for the player that wants to play what they think is the typical straight 'elf' or 'dwarf' or by mixing in a bit of something else.

I came up with a system much like this. I wrote about it on the RPGMusings blog yesterday. I'm not sure what the ENWorld policy is on linking though, so if you're interested in reading it the link is in my Twitter stream or you can ask me directly through the private system.

I like the idea of the paths, however, it might be a tad too complicated for some people. It might make 5e, but not in core, in "splats".

I think it can be core, but the key is to also have a system where a character who isn't multiclassed is just as viable as one who isn't. PCs of equal character level should be relatively equal in ability to contribute, regardless of their respective class levels.

 

[Number48]

My ideal 5E would have something kinda like multiclassing automatically. You choose race, combat class, interaction class and (probably) a theme class to tie it together. The geometric expansion of possibilities should cater to almost any character concept.

If, however, that still isn't enough for you, I can see using feats as a way to take another's class ability instead of your class's ability for that level.

Damn I want to be in on the creation of this.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'd like multi-classing to be unnecessary because classes are modular enough that you can build what you want.

However, that's unrealistic, so given prior art I'll say that I found the 3E approach much more effective than the 4E approach. I'd accept the 1E approach if balance issues were sorted out.

 

[Aramax]

Instead of multi-classing in the 3E sense, I think we may see multi-classing either supported by feats, or a system similar to hybrids in 4E, or perhaps both. Multi-classing in the 3E vein is actually limited to that edition (as far as I know), and 2E shared more in common with hybrid classes from 4E.

How do you think multi-classing will be supported?

Multi classing is one of the things 4th got right

 

[GM Dave]

The one thing that was really good in 4e were the Paragon Paths. They were some of the most flavourful additions to the game. The new classes of the Players Guide 2 (Avenger, Shaman, Invoker, and Warden) were good for adding new flavour to the game. I preferred the fluff much more then most of the prestige classes which seemed to have fluff more to justify a selection of powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Multi classing is one of the things 4th got right

Not everyone would agree with that. Some might even strongly disagree with that statement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The latest chat transcript includes a quote that they're "shooting for" 3e multiclassing.

Conceptually, 3e multiclassing is ideal. The math was problematic, but entirely fixable.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think there needs to be both multi-classing, where someone does two roles at once (though perhaps not as well as either as a single class) and dual classing, where someone gives up his old class to start a new ones, but still remembers what he learned in the old class.

1e/2e did this pretty well, because levels weren't nearly as discrete as they are in 3e (and apparently 4e).

A multl-class character could do more, but he'd be 1-2 levels behind a single class character. They could still easily adventure in the same party as their higher level companions.

The latest chat transcript includes a quote that they're "shooting for" 3e multiclassing.

Conceptually, 3e multiclassing is ideal. The math was problematic, but entirely fixable.

I disagree - 3e multiclassing was really like dual classing of past editions - a character would only improve in one class at a time, rather than get better at both, and because it was split (usually) characters could end up very weak, as they would never reach the peak of either class. That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

 

[Ahnehnois]

I disagree - 3e multiclassing was really like dual classing of past editions - a character would only improve in one class at a time, rather than get better at both, and because it was split (usually) characters could end up very weak, as they would never reach the peak of either class. That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

That would be the problematic, but fixable part. If base attack were less important, and if some base magic bonus existed to facilitate multiclass characters, the characters 3e required you to bend the rules to make viable would become the norm.

 

[Stalker0]

A multl-class character could do more, but he'd be 1-2 levels behind a single class character. They could still easily adventure in the same party as their higher level companions.

What they may do is mix in a little 4e balancing with 3e multiclassing.

For example, your attack and defenses may be more like 4e, a slight adjustment for your class but ultimately your level and ability scores were the predominant measure of theses.

With that, multiclassing might get you different classes abilities, but your mechanical core is independent of your class decisions. Still plenty of chances for abuse, but less than traditional 3e multiclassing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's why they had to come up with the prestige classes (like the mystic theurge) to fix the problem it caused

Despite starting with D&D in 1977' I always preferred the 3Ed version of multiclassing. To me, that "not peaking" thing was not a problem.

 

[Cyberzombie]

I'd like multi-classing to be unnecessary because classes are modular enough that you can build what you want.

However, that's unrealistic, so given prior art I'll say that I found the 3E approach much more effective than the 4E approach. I'd accept the 1E approach if balance issues were sorted out.

Not so! In Pathfinder, you can multiclass exactly like in 3e, but most characters don't have to. Classes are modular, especially as they add more splatbooks, and it's easy to switch out the powers you don't want for ones you do. It's not entirely flexible -- you'd still have to multiclass to do a cleric/rogue, but you wouldn't for a fighter/mage. There are any number of ways you could do a fighter/spelluser as a single classed character, depending on exactly which aspects you want.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

If things like attack bonuses and saves/defenses and spell progression/effectiveness were the same way as they were in 4e, which is completely dependent on universal level and independent of separate class progressions. Then 3e style multiclassing would be fine.

Otherwise it's flawed, and we're left with having to create prestige classes like Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge again.